Jersey Girl wrote:I really don't care what DCP has to say on the topic.
Does anyone see anything strange in the first para of this post by "Kadahow"?
Having treated sex offenders I would like to put a thought or two here.
All the sex offenders I treated had to break away from a rich fantasy life. Fantasy about having sex with children, non-consentual sex, and other forms of sexual outlets. What went along with the fantasies was the masterbation. Some clients didn't have too much of a problem, where other clients had a great deal of a problem, like masterbating 10-12 times a day. To change behaviors they had to change life styles. They had to drop the fantasies. In fact there is a treatment mode that was used using masterbation and adult pornography (soft or hard). I chose not to use that method because it still taught the men that its okay to have objects (fantasy removed the humanity of his fantasy victim) of sexual contact, I wanted them to see people (man or woman) as real, children as real and that all could hurt because of his desires and acting out.
I can't put much stock in Kadahow's opinions about masturbation, when he/she obviously can't even spell it. If this was part of your work, wouldn't you be able to spell it correctly? Plus, the method of requiring a teen boy to ask a girl if he can use her as yank material sounds abusive.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
skippy the dead wrote:Plus, the method of requiring a teen boy to ask a girl if he can use her as yank material sounds abusive.
He seems to think that not asking is abusive. Which do you think is more abusive, using a girl as a sex object without her permission, or with her permission?
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Jersey Girl wrote:I really don't care what DCP has to say on the topic.
Does anyone see anything strange in the first para of this post by "Kadahow"?
Having treated sex offenders I would like to put a thought or two here.
All the sex offenders I treated had to break away from a rich fantasy life. Fantasy about having sex with children, non-consentual sex, and other forms of sexual outlets. What went along with the fantasies was the masterbation. Some clients didn't have too much of a problem, where other clients had a great deal of a problem, like masterbating 10-12 times a day. To change behaviors they had to change life styles. They had to drop the fantasies. In fact there is a treatment mode that was used using masterbation and adult pornography (soft or hard). I chose not to use that method because it still taught the men that its okay to have objects (fantasy removed the humanity of his fantasy victim) of sexual contact, I wanted them to see people (man or woman) as real, children as real and that all could hurt because of his desires and acting out.
I can't put much stock in Kadahow's opinions about masturbation, when he/she obviously can't even spell it. If this was part of your work, wouldn't you be able to spell it correctly? Plus, the method of requiring a teen boy to ask a girl if he can use her as yank material sounds abusive.
Bingo.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
skippy the dead wrote:Plus, the method of requiring a teen boy to ask a girl if he can use her as yank material sounds abusive.
He seems to think that not asking is abusive. Which do you think is more abusive, using a girl as a sex object without her permission, or with her permission?
If he's sitting alone in his room, there's nothing abusive about picturing her in his mind. I think "using a girl as a sex object" in this context is a bit of an overstatement. Plus, where do you draw the line? What if he wanted to picture being with her, without actually touching himself, is that okay? C'mon.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
skippy the dead wrote:I can't put much stock in Kadahow's opinions about masturbation, when he/she obviously can't even spell it. If this was part of your work, wouldn't you be able to spell it correctly?
If I had walked out on lecturers at my university with bad handwriting or idiosyncratic spelling errors, I wouldn't have learned much. I think we need more information to go on than just this.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
skippy the dead wrote:Plus, the method of requiring a teen boy to ask a girl if he can use her as yank material sounds abusive.
He seems to think that not asking is abusive. Which do you think is more abusive, using a girl as a sex object without her permission, or with her permission?
If he's sitting alone in his room, there's nothing abusive about picturing her in his mind.
Sexual objectification is ok as long as there's no touching?
I think "using a girl as a sex object" in this context is a bit of an overstatement.
Why? It's simple sexual objectification, just like boys have been taught to do for centuries. Only we're much more public about teaching it these days.
Plus, where do you draw the line? What if he wanted to picture being with her, without actually touching himself, is that okay? C'mon.
I draw the line at sexual objectification, so whether it's with consent or without consent, present or not present, I don't agree with it.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
skippy the dead wrote:Plus, the method of requiring a teen boy to ask a girl if he can use her as yank material sounds abusive.
He seems to think that not asking is abusive. Which do you think is more abusive, using a girl as a sex object without her permission, or with her permission?
If he's sitting alone in his room, there's nothing abusive about picturing her in his mind.
Sexual objectification is ok as long as there's no touching?
I think "using a girl as a sex object" in this context is a bit of an overstatement.
Why? It's simple sexual objectification, just like boys have been taught to do for centuries. Only we're much more public about teaching it these days.
Plus, where do you draw the line? What if he wanted to picture being with her, without actually touching himself, is that okay? C'mon.
I draw the line at sexual objectification, so whether it's with consent or without consent, present or not present, I don't agree with it.
I suppose on this we will disagree. Seems to me that men are just hardwired to be sexually stimulated visually (and yes, this is a generalization) - I don't believe it's what boys have been "taught to do for centuries." I'm coming at this as a chick, but I suspect that there may be a few men around that could back me up on this.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
skippy the dead wrote:Seems to me that men are just hardwired to be sexually stimulated visually (and yes, this is a generalization) - I don't believe it's what boys have been "taught to do for centuries." I'm coming at this as a chick, but I suspect that there may be a few men around that could back me up on this.
I agree that we are hardwired to be sexually stimulated visually. That is not the same as sexual objectification, which is a matter of conscious decision making.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Fortigurn wrote: I agree that we are hardwired to be sexually stimulated visually. That is not the same as sexual objectification, which is a matter of conscious decision making.
Hmm. I suppose I can't readily see where a bright line would be drawn distinguishing the two, although the two ends of the spectrum are obvious to me.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Fortigurn wrote: I agree that we are hardwired to be sexually stimulated visually. That is not the same as sexual objectification, which is a matter of conscious decision making.
Hmm. I suppose I can't readily see where a bright line would be drawn distinguishing the two, although the two ends of the spectrum are obvious to me.
Sexual stimulation is a biological response which does not necessitate conscious thought. Sexual objectification is a conscious decision which does require conscious thought.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|