On Nov 13, 10:22 am, nos...@
nospam.com (monkie) wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:35:02 -0800, "Raishaan"
comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>>Facinating reading. Seems that the weak point of the organization was who
>>got to drive. Pretty standard human nature. :)
>
>>>I ran across this and thought it sounded interesting.
>
> I have an Oneida silverware tea set, a wedding gift to my parents
> (1940's) from relatives who lived in the NY Finger Lakes district. I
> didn't know the Oneida were so complex. The right of passage or
> puberty ritual might be considered a matriarchy .... Christian
> matriarchy? It sounds pagan or something It was Queen Victoria who
> popularized dedicated marraige between young couples, turned it into a
> fad that became the social norm and possibly subverted the communal
> tradition.
I think it would suck to do 40 year old women as a 14 year old. I
would rather do girls my own age at any age. But I don't think it
would hurt them. If sex is consensual at any age, how does it hurt
the minor? And if it doesn't hurt them, then why would we hurt and
penalize the adult. If the child is not coerced, restrained,
threatened or forced, then how is it crime? It seems society is doing
evil when it penalizes in such situations. And when you penalize
someone, you hurt not only them, but their friends, and relatives, and
even the minor who they had a relationship with.
The greatest number of people committing child abuse must be parents.
No one has a greater opportunity to commit child rape - incest and get
away with it than a parent. Parents need to know, that while they may
have a right to force their children to do many things, such as play
in little league or clean their rooms, they do not have a right to
force them to have sex with them, for that is rape. Parents do not
have a right to have sex with their children. In fact, they do not
have a right to touch their children in any way without their consent,
just as no one has a right to touch anyone else without their consent,
and it should be illegal to spank your children or strike them in any
way, for that is pure assault. Parents should not lord over their
children in any case, and hopefully they don't have to force them to
do very many things to begin with.
Children need to have sex ed at a young age, be taught about sex, and
how to deal with abusive parents, that they must either get the abuse
to stop, or suffer the abuse, or be orphans and go into a foster
home. The obvious choice is for the child to get the abuse to stop,
and get on with their lives, if it is not flagrant, and if possible.
Next they need to be taught to tell a school counselor or teacher or
principle or call a number, so they can get out of an abusive family
if it's too abusive and it doesn't stop.
But if sex is consensual then I don't see how it hurts a minor.
Having someone touch your genitals does not hurt you. Having someone
put their mouths on your genitals does not hurt you. Touching someone
else's genitals does not hurt you. Putting your mouth on someone
else's genitals does not hurt you, and coitus does not hurt you,
unless it does, and in which case you would be saying "stop" and it
would be rape, and if a minor is forced or restrained it is rape, just
as it is for an adult. If a minor is threatened or coerced it is
rape, just as it is for an adult. And nobody wants to be raped.
Assault is bad to begin with. Rape is a flagrant violation. Desired
hugging is not assault.
And yet perhaps there are some people who had consensual sex with
adults as minors and yet still feel themselves victims, if so, this
would partially contradict what I am saying. That would be some
evidence that it's somehow rape in any case. Yet even so, at the same
time, there may be some people who had consensual sex with adults as
minors and remember it as the happiest actions of their lives. And
there may be some people who had consensual sex with adults as minors
and felt and feel it nothing and neutral. So one would have to
balance all the cases to determine what the answer was in that case.
In any case, people sometimes make bad decisions in life, both sexual
and otherwise. The mere fact that even large numbers of people chose
to have consensual sex with adults as children and later regretted it
does not necessarily mean that it should be illegal. One would
seriously have to believe in the inability of a child - perhaps a
virgin, to make a willful sexual choice. And this is all based on a
hypothetical assumption that such people who consensually and
willfully chose as children to have sex as adults and later regretted
it actually exist. And any way, they don't have to have sex again a
second time if they regretted it the first in any case. So such
reasoning may be dubious.
Perhaps not dubious given potential inabilities in children's
judgment. Perhaps all the more dubious if such children regretted
merely due to the fact that they were taught by society that it was
somehow wrong and bad. That is not truth, but a decision to condemn
something.
Anyway, it would be better if the law could focus on apprehending the
actual rapists. The greatest solution to the problem of child abuse,
is in my opinion, the education of children, and the self reporting of
children. There is no other good way to catch the criminals.
Society makes scapegoats out of lesser sex offenders and ruins many
individuals for no reason. Society is doing evil in this regard. The
current sex-offender registry thing is an abomination that effectively
leaves people in prison for years, with an illusion that they have
been released to the outside. Except for forcible rapists, no one
should be classified as a "sex offender, " if anyone should be
classified as a sex offender at all. in my opinion all these other
sexual offenses are legal, or should at least be worth no more than a
fine. But they seek to make social outcasts of good people, they have
made scapegoats of them, they are nearly the new "niggers" and they
ruin innocent individuals lives, which all the while does nothing
about the real rape and incest which must be going on within homes
behind closed doors of families with tyrants for parents.
Child porno is freedom of the press. It is free speech. Buying it
should no more be a crime, then buying a newspaper with pictures of
the terrorists being sexually abused in prison. Those people who
actually restrain, force, threaten, or coerce children into sexual
acts should be the ones put in jail.
By failing to differentiate between consensual and nonconsensual sex,
they are effectively saying that child rape is just as okay as child
consensual intercourse.
A restraining order is an option if an adult is trying to have
consentual sex with one's children. If they violate the restraining
order they go to jail.
If it legally makes no difference, then it's possible that some
pedophiles just rape, rather than trying to find consenting children.
What is it that makes a pedophile attracted to minors? There may be 1
of several things going on:
1) children are easy prey, weak and not wise in the ways of the world
2) The Adult is looking for anyone, doesn't care about the age, and
the other person just happened to be a minor.
3) the Adult is attracted to kids specifically. If the adult is
attracted to kids specifically, known as a "pedophile," what is it
exactly that attracts them? For instance, would the pedophile be
attracted to a 30 year old adult who _looked_ just like a child?
Would the pedophile be attracted to a 1 year old who had aged
miraculously quickly and looked like a 30 year old? Or is it
something perhaps even more ephemeral, like the "idea" of a child. In
any case, pedophilia is either a fetish or a sexual orientation.
Saying that pedophilia is a mental disorder is like saying that
homosexuality is a mental disorder. With an fetish, sexual
orientation, or desire, the problem arises if it is destructive. If
pedophilia is destructive, as it is in the form of child rape, then
this is a concerning issue. If pedophilia can be expressed in ways
not destructive such as through consensual child intercourse or
possibly pornography of sorts, then perhaps it is not destructive.
People have many different kinds of fantasies, and they need not be
seen as a mental disorder as such unless they become destructive, or
they want to get over them, perhaps through some sort of catharsis.
> Thanks for the history. I'll think on that next time I brew a pot of
> tea!
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Oneida Society
>>>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
>>> The Oneida Community was a utopian commune founded by John Humphrey
>>> Noyes in 1848 in Oneida, New York. The community believed that Jesus
>>> Christ had already returned in the year 70, making it possible for
>>> them to bring about Christ's millennial kingdom themselves, and be
>>> free of sin and perfect in this world, not just Heaven (a belief
>>> called Perfectionism).
>
>>> The Oneida Community practiced Communalism (in the sense of communal
>>> property and possessions), Complex Marriage, Male Continence, Mutual
>>> Criticism and Ascending Fellowship. There were smaller communities in
>>> Wallingford, Connecticut; Newark, New Jersey; Putney, Vermont; and
>>> Cambridge, Vermont. The community's original 87 members grew to 172 by
>>> February 1850, 208 by 1852 and 306 by 1878. With the exception of the
>>> Wallingford community, which remained in operation until devastated by
>>> a tornado in 1878, all the rest of the branches were closed in 1854.
>>> The Oneida Community dissolved in 1881, and eventually became the
>>> silverware giant Oneida Limited.
>
>>> Community structure
>>> Males and females had equality and equal voice in the governance of
>>> the community. A community nursery provided care for infants and
>>> children so that both parents could work. Females adopted a style of
>>> dress, believed to have been copied from the Iroquois, consisting of a
>>> short skirt over trousers (bloomers). This allowed them much greater
>>> freedom of movement than contemporary women's styles.
>
>>> Even though the community reached a maximum population of about three
>>> hundred, it had a complex bureaucracy of twenty-seven standing
>>> committees and forty-eight administrative sections.
>
>>> The Oneida Community was a self-supporting enterprise. Its primary
>>> industries were the growing and canning of fruits and vegetables, the
>>> production of silk thread, and the manufacture of animal traps. They
>>> were the primary supplier of animal traps to the Hudson Bay Company.
>>> The manufacturing of silverware, the sole remaining industry, was not
>>> begun until 1877, relatively late in the life of the Oneida Community.
>>> Secondary industries of the Oneida Community included the manufacture
>>> of leather travel bags, the weaving of palm frond hats, the
>>> construction of rustic garden furniture, and tourism.
>
>>> All Community members were expected to work, according to his or her
>>> abilities. Although more skilled jobs tended to remain with one person
>>> (the financial manager, for example, held his post throughout the life
>>> of the Community), Community members rotated through the more menial
>>> jobs, working in the house, the fields, or the various industries. As
>>> the Community thrived, they began to hire outsiders to work in these
>>> positions as well. They were a major employer in the area, with
>>> approximately 200 employees by 1870.
>
>>> Complex marriage
>>> In theory, every male was married to every female. In practice, this
>>> meant that most adults had continuous sexual access to a partner.
>>> Community members were not to have an exclusive sexual or romantic
>>> relationship with each other, but were to keep in constant
>>> circulation. To help prevent a "special love" from forming, each
>>> Community member had his or her own bedroom. This extended even to
>>> couples who came to the Community already married. A married couple
>>> entering the Community was not required or even encouraged to legally
>>> dissolve their union, but rather to extend the borders of it to the
>>> rest of the Community in complex marriage. The average female
>>> Community member had three sexual encounters, or "interviews", a week.
>
>>> Post-menopausal women were encouraged to introduce teenage males to
>>> sex, providing both with legitimate partners that rarely resulted in
>>> pregnancies. Furthermore, these women became religious role models for
>>> the young men. Noyes often used his own judgment in determining the
>>> partnerships which would form and would often encourage relationships
>>> between the non-devout and the devout in the community, in the hopes
>>> that the attitudes and behaviors of the devout would influence the non-
>>> devout.
>
>>> Male continence
>>> Males were encouraged to avoid ejaculation during intercourse with
>>> their partners, as a sign of grace. (Compare with Tantric sex.) This
>>> meant that many sexual acts did not cause impregnation of the female
>>> partner. This practice was based on the idea that "wasting" a man's
>>> semen was bad, and that difficult pregnancies for women should be
>>> avoided. (Noyes' wife had lost four of five children during her
>>> pregnancies.) The Oneida Community had a low fecundity rate, although
>>> there are around 40 unplanned pregnancies documented during the early
>>> years of the Oneida Community.
>
>>> Male Continence is based on the male's muscular ability to control his
>>> ejaculation during sexual coitus. Young boys just entering puberty
>>> were only allowed to participate in sexual acts with women who were
>>> past the child bearing age until they had proved their fully mastered
>>> ability to control ejaculation. Many women of the community found male
>>> continence to lead to the furtherment of their sexual enjoyment, as
>>> sexual encounters often could last for more than one hour.
>
>>> There were rumors at the time claiming that controlling the man's
>>> 'seed' could be detrimental to the male's health and lead to
>>> infertility, but these claims were later disproved.
>
>>> Mutual criticism
>>> Every member of the community was subject to criticism by committee or
>>> the community as a whole, during a general meeting. The goal was to
>>> eliminate bad character traits. Various contemporary sources contend
>>> that Noyes himself was the subject of criticism, although less often
>>> and of probably less severe criticism than the rest of the community.
>
>>> John Humphrey Noyes believed that sex had social and spiritual
>>> purposes, not only biological. To Communitarians, it was yet another
>>> path to perfection. Generally, it was believed that older people were
>>> spiritually superior to younger people, and men were spiritually
>>> superior to women. Noyes and his inner circle were at the top of this
>>> hierarchy in the Community. In order to improve oneself, one was only
>>> supposed to have sexual relations with those spiritually superior.
>>> This was called "ascending fellowship." Once a Community member had
>>> reached a certain level (usually determined by Noyes and his inner
>>> circle), they were then to turn around and practice "descending
>>> fellowship" with those Communitarians trying to work their way up.
>
>>> Stirpiculture
>>> A program of eugenics, then known as stirpiculture, was introduced in
>>> 1869.[1][2] It was a selective breeding program designed to create
>>> even more perfect children. Communitarians who wished to be parents
>>> would go before a committee and get matched based on their spiritual
>>> and moral qualities. 53 women and 38 men participated in this program,
>>> which necessitated the construction of a new wing of the Oneida
>>> Community Mansion House. The experiment yielded 58 children, nine of
>>> whom were fathered by Noyes.
>
>>> Once children were weaned from breast milk (usually at around the age
>>> of one), they were raised communally in the Children's Wing, or South
>>> Wing. Their parents were allowed to visit, but if those in charge of
>>> the Children's Wing suspected a parent and child were bonding too
>>> closely to one another, the Community would enforce a period of
>>> separation.
>
>>> Decline
>>> The community lasted until John Humphrey Noyes attempted to pass the
>>> leadership of the Community to his son, Theodore Noyes. This move was
>>> unsuccessful because Theodore Noyes was an atheist and lacked his
>>> father's talent for leadership. The move also divided the Community,
>>> with Communitarian John Towner attempting to wrest control for
>>> himself.
>
>>> Within the commune, there was a debate about when children should be
>>> initiated into sexual rituals, and by whom. There was also much debate
>>> about its practices as a whole. The founding members of the Community
>>> were aging or deceased, and many of the younger Communitarians desired
>>> to enter into exclusive, traditional marriages.
>
>>> The capstone to all these pressures was the harassment campaign of
>>> Professor Mears, of Hamilton College. John Humphrey Noyes was tipped
>>> off by trusted adviser Myron Kinsley that a warrant for his arrest on
>>> charges of statutory rape was imminent. Noyes fled the Oneida
>>> Community Mansion House and the country in the middle of a June night
>>> in 1879, never to return to America alive. Shortly afterwards, he
>>> wrote to his followers from Niagara Falls, Ontario, advising that the
>>> practice of complex marriage be abandoned.
>
>>> Complex Marriage was abandoned in 1879 following external pressures
>>> and the community soon after broke apart with some of the
>
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
