Lounge bans Andy Taylor?

[GAR]

I don't understand why Andy Taylor got banned.

Was this because he's disruptive? Aw poo poo, now. C'mon, you gotta be kidding me.

Last I seen him online, he posted a thread calling LoungeMachine to the mat with a seizure-inducing spampost of flashing graphics.

And he gets banned for THAT?

If that's all you banned him for, being a snert and giving Cata a grand-mal, I think it's appropriate to lift the ban boot off his throat.

If you don't, you know he'll be back and as it stands now I only recognize a few hundred regular usernames and the whole churning-accounts thing disturbs me because I have to keep a mental note inside my peanut-shelled lil' brain who such-n-such really is. Take DiamondDen for example.. DD v.2.0, 2.5, 3.0.. how many aliases does it take to get the point across - and Andy Taylor was not even a tenth as disruptive as PandaBoyJoy.

Let's try to keep your snert-fights efficient, and under one username if possible and take it easy on the Beaver?

I mean, wtf? What's this place about if you're gonna kill off all the enthusiastic belligerance that comes against you?

You should be flattered someone hates you enough that all he can possibly do is push your buttons.

Cant we all.. just get along?

[Guitar Shark]

GAR complaining about abuse of mod powers.

Oh, the ironicy!

[chefcraig]

GAR complaining about abuse of mod powers.

Oh, the ironicy!

Read this, where he thinks he is a mod.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/1343270-post4.html

[Guitar Shark]

Yes, I know craig.

I was referring to the time when he actually WAS a mod, and lost the gig due to most unfortunate conduct.

But you probably already knew that, too.

Gotta love it

I also love the assumption that Lounge is responsible for every occurrence that is the least bit controversial.

That Lounge is one powerful cat!

[chefcraig]

Gotcha. It simply reads odd, as if there is a belief that he still holds the position, ya know?

As for Lounge, the poor bastard is merely a magnet for the unbalanced.

[chefcraig]

That was odd, wasn't it? Maybe he had a stutter, or perhaps suffered from multiple personality disorder.

[Panamark]

GAR

Andy Banned Himself.
He insisted on being banned... (truth !)
Lounge Machine was having way too much fun to pull the
power plug on that one....

[Nickdfresh]

And gayGAR knows full well that a mod cannot ban here...

[chefcraig]

Andy Banned Himself.
He insisted on being banned... (truth !)
Lounge Machine was having way too much fun to pull the
power plug on that one....

I truly fail to follow the thinking in that course of action, as I've seen it a few times before. Is it that hard NOT to log onto/view a website? This seems like an unnecessarily dramatic turn. Then again, perhaps the word "drama" was the key.

I wish the guy well. Seriously.

[Panamark]

Befuddled Craig ?

[chefcraig]

Perpetually.

[twonabomber]

at least there wasn't an "i'm leaving" thread. i fucking hate those.

[Diamondjimi]

No shit. The most pathetic attention whore is the one who post's one and doesn't fuckin leave...

[hideyoursheep]

I don't understand why Andy Taylor got banned.

Look at his threads...


He should have been fucking DEPORTED to the Gayman Islands!

[LoungeMachine]

Gar, you are, quite simply..... the biggest fucking MORON on earth.

Mods dont/cant BAN people here, and you know that, you fucking simp.

If we could, I would have banned YOU for posting a FAKE obit of Jizzy, so soon after we lost Mick.

How many threads dedicated to me are you going to start? Your boyfriend Jizzy had at least 5-6 with my name on them.

Or why not just start another I'M BOYCOTTING/LEAVING the site thread if things dont go your way.

Fucking gimp.

Remember katydid literally chasing you out of here.



Fucking retard.

[binnie]

I wonder, is a poster who advocates sex with teens such a loss?

[kwame k]

I wonder, is a poster who advocates sex with teens such a loss?

Not in my book.

[Seshmeister]

It wasn't just teens he was a sicko.

[chefcraig]

I wonder, is a poster who advocates sex with teens such a loss?

Not in my book.

I dunno...given the opportunity, I would have nailed Sophia Loren when she was sixteen.

You see, it is one thing to make a joke about an issue, it is quite another to use your own nebulous reasoning about it to advocate it as acceptable behavior. The key word here is rationalization. In other words, forcing your own warped or misguided thinking on a subject onto others. Really, every nutjob out there that has over-reacted in a traffic situation, found himself aroused by a farm animal or stuck his hand into a running lawnmower felt the action was perfectly justified at the time. To speak as these actions are absolutely normal, let alone acceptable pushes the bounds of not only common sense, yet utter sanity as well.

If you find yourself sexually attracted to an under aged girl or even a bowling ball, well hooray for you. You are obviously working with some issues that remain largely unresolved in your cranium. Yet please, do not attempt to prove that everyone else is wrong for failing to share that philosophy, as everyone else are not the problem here.

And Duran Duran has a crummy rhythm section, no matter how pretty their videos may be.

[binnie]

I dunno...given the opportunity, I would have nailed Sophia Loren when she was sixteen.

You see, it is one thing to make a joke about an issue, it is quite another to use your own nebulous reasoning about it to advocate it as acceptable behavior. The key word here is rationalization. In other words, forcing your own warped or misguided thinking on a subject onto others. Really, every nutjob out there that has over-reacted in a traffic situation, found himself aroused by a farm animal or stuck his hand into a running lawnmower felt the action was perfectly justified at the time. To speak as these actions are absolutely normal, let alone acceptable pushes the bounds of not only common sense, yet utter sanity as well.

If you find yourself sexually attracted to an under aged girl or even a bowling ball, well hooray for you. You are obviously working with some issues that remain largely unresolved in your cranium. Yet please, do not attempt to prove that everyone else is wrong for failing to share that philosophy, as everyone else are not the problem here.

And Duran Duran has a crummy rhythm section, no matter how pretty their videos may be.

Exactly.

[binnie]

He'll be back as an alias............

[Diamondjimi]

Bank on it ...

[GAR]

GAR

Andy Banned Himself.
He insisted on being banned... (truth !)

So when do we old school diamond mafia-era types let a berserker off easy like that?

I vote for an UnBan! Maybe he thought all his posts would be deleted?

[GAR]

It wasn't just teens he was a sicko.

Spoken as if this board wasn't a good place to shelve your own Sick?

Cmon, it's gonna be a boring summer if you don't have just a little disruption going on and we've seen way worse

[Seshmeister]

He'll be back as an alias............

Probably Gary Glitter...

[binnie]

Probably Gary Glitter...

I can see the thread now:

'Gary Glitter: unappreciated musical genius and visionary child sexuality practitioner'

[Igosplut]

Spoken as if this board wasn't a good place to shelve your own Sick?

Cmon, it's gonna be a boring summer if you don't have just a little disruption going on and we've seen way worse

Why don't "WE" answer my reply to your post in the other thread in this forum...

[LoungeMachine]

we've seen way worse

Looking at it right now.....



I know your fear, GayR.

If the trolls all leave, you'll be the last idiot in the village.

[GAR]

Its the whole alias thing, Sesh, it's cuntfusing.

I thought he was slightly amusing, but that's about it. I don't mean to speak up for the guy, but when do we ever cave in to a troll's demands?

So the guy couldn't control himself.. so what? His type always returns anyway as an alias. Then, thinking I've been defensive, I get a PM "hey psst its me" and it becomes an uncomfortable implied alliance thing "troll vs board, with me or not" thing that I'd rather avoid.

I contribute to this board once in awhile, but I don't really do the alliance thing: I may try to tilt the Army vs Savicki to a less hostile, neutral position by offering my unseen wisdom now and again but I really don't know who he is except thru Hitchworld.

And I don't chat or phone.

All that being said, I'm trying to say in the most neutral of positions "when do we ever give a troll anything?" when I say Unban the Andy.

Did we ever have a precedence with banning Joe Thunder? I could be wrong but I think he'd asked a few times to be banned..

[GAR]

If the trolls all leave, you'll be the last idiot in the village.

It's either that, or all the PenKeepers saying "amen Brother" the way this board melted down, with all the backslapping you guys did to boost your postcount while Sarge was away.

[Seshmeister]

Its the whole alias thing, Sesh, it's cuntfusing.

I thought he was slightly amusing, but that's about it. I don't mean to speak up for the guy, but when do we ever cave in to a troll's demands?

So the guy couldn't control himself.. so what? His type always returns anyway as an alias. Then, thinking I've been defensive, I get a PM "hey psst its me" and it becomes an uncomfortable implied alliance thing "troll vs board, with me or not" thing that I'd rather avoid.

I contribute to this board once in awhile, but I don't really do the alliance thing: I may try to tilt the Army vs Savicki to a less hostile, neutral position by offering my unseen wisdom now and again but I really don't know who he is except thru Hitchworld.

And I don't chat or phone.

All that being said, I'm trying to say in the most neutral of positions "when do we ever give a troll anything?" when I say Unban the Andy.

Did we ever have a precedence with banning Joe Thunder? I could be wrong but I think he'd asked a few times to be banned..

Personally I thought he was sailing very fucking close to the wind. If it had been at DDLR we probably wouldn't have banned him but someone would have PM'd him to say calm it. If he asked to be banned I would have said fine problem solved.

The bad music taste or obnoxious posting style was not the problem. His take on pedophilia was. Free speech only goes so far and the moderators/webmasters have to watch their own position re a hosts response to a complaint if it came or the danger to people who post or read the site from work.

Thats just my opinion though for what it's worth...

Cheers

[fryingdutchman]

This entire thread should have been closed right after these three words...

I don't understand

[LoungeMachine]

Its

, but when do we ever

..

You use the term we alot....

Are you a mod/webbie, and I'm unaware of it?

[WesGriffin]

Glad I missed it. Whatever it was.-???

[LoungeMachine]

Glad I missed it. Whatever it was.-???

Not to worry...

They're will be another one along shortly.

It's like clockwork [orange]

Same troll, different hangup.

We get people who fuck socks [literally], stalkers, neo-nazi racists, people who claim to know Dave and write CVH songs, [again, literally ], satanists, pic spammers, and of course your run-of-the-mill Internet Knowitalls see: GAR

No biggie if one gets banned, self-inflicted or otherwise, because another will be along to take its place in no time.....



We seem to attracted them....

[TAFKA A Taylor]

I told Panamark my work was done here. I quit because as I explained to him I didn't like the heavy handed moderating in TFL mainly. I've seen this happen before, where a post mysteriously disappeared and the only explanation is, mods can't delete posts. It isn't that alone, but right from the start EVERY attempt is made to marginalise a poster, beginning with a group of people shouting you down (censorship), then the mods follow you across the board trying to incite you, jumping on as many posts as they can, which turns into a flame war if you choose to defend yourself. I know my banning was brought up atleast once before in the past. I decided I wasn't going to let the assholes get away with the taunts, which was a little too much for the power hungry mods to bear. So, the final resort was moving my posts to a separate thread (censorship) and the beginning of post deletion. I don't take kindly to such tactics and it was worth making a point of it by asking to be removed.

As in the Duran or NWO threads, there's no real answers given to points that are raised. It's always that it's outside the boundaries of 'common sense' or 'even sanity'.


I pity most of you. You said so yourself that these are the standards set for us by present day society. Society at different periods has dictated many things; in the past it would be portraying gays as abnormal. Going back further your kind would have gotten witches to float and also picked up stones to throw at Jesus. And more proof that you come from this lineage of idiots is in your blindness and lack of ability to think for yourselves - which has given us another era of war mongering in the form of Obama even when you had some truly incredible candidates, but you went for the person who had the most media time bought for him. Speaking of society's mores... things like human nature don't change quickly, that applies not just to sexual desire but also attitudes towards gays, other races, the opposite gender. A gay person would quickly identify the atmosphere here as being homophobic and most posters here are clearly so, but when confronted, it's 'oh no I'm not', because that would be the 'wrong' attitude to have, being politically correct. I don't see anything surprising here, your kind has existed all through history and will through to the end, which thanks to you comes ever closer.


The word underage is thrown around despite there being cultural differences to the age of consent. Exactly what is underage? If sexual relations with a 17
year old is sick, because of the "child's" "innocense" and age difference, how is the concept of the MILF not sick? Not just from the adult side but fantasizing about someone who is as old and has the "look" of a mother? You cannot be morally inconsistent here and claim that the latter is not "creepy." The truth is that you're also personally creeped out by homosexuality, try and deny it all you want. You're not ok with homosexuality, and despite what you say I don't believe for one minute that you haven't come across 16 year old's who you wouldn't lust after and have if it remained a secret. You want to say teens are innocent, well that's the conditioned pc claptrap you like to repeat and not "common sense" or fact.


And we didn't even get into the very real fact that it's supposedly "normally" people who are shocked about child abuse that go ahead with reading the sordid details of it and apparently derive a sick thrill from reading this stuff. There's been plenty of commentary on this, don't you worry. Have these masses of people who are described as normal been accounted for? What is going on exactly in the dark recesses of some minds? Nothing I said in my posts was suggestive of anything as sick as that. If you had any intelligence you would have understood that.



Now stop being dumbasses and with a non-hysterical approach, try and read through the following.





What Judith Levine is Really Saying

By Liz Highleyman, AlterNet. Posted April 26, 2002.



Judith Levine's book, "Harmful to Minors" has stirred up enormous controversy. But with the conservative right setting the discourse, Levine's true insights are getting lost.


"Parents today have forgotten what it was like to be teenagers themselves," I conjectured recently. A friend and I were discussing why so many people find the issue of teen sexuality so terrifying. "No," he replied, "they're afraid because they remember exactly what it was like!"

Few issues cause as much consternation as the sexual lives of young people, a fact made abundantly clear to author Judith Levine and the University of Minnesota Press upon publication of "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex."

In the furor over the book, most commentators have missed Levine's main point: "Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors." In fact, "America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them."

Despite what critics contend, "Harmful to Minors" is not about pedophilia. It tackles a wide range of issues including censorship, statutory rape laws, abstinence-only sex education, abortion, gender, AIDS, and child welfare. The latter issue, which raises questions beyond sexuality about how our society provides for its neediest children, is "the most important one in the book," Levine told AlterNet, and "the real reason the right is against me." But the inflammatory issue of child-adult sex continues to draw the headlines.

Why does the proposition that youth deserves sexual autonomy, pleasure, and privacy seem so radical? In the 1970s, the sexual revolution was in full swing and the idea that children and teens were sexual beings was accepted, at least among progressives. Books such as Heidi Handman and Peter Brennan's "Sex Handbook: Information and Help for Minors" and Sol Gordon's "You!" showed respect for young people and their ability to make their own sexual decisions.

For the past two decades, though, the religious right has been winning the war against comprehensive sex education, access to abortion and contraception, and the sexual autonomy of young people. By the late 1980s, Gordon had shifted his advice toward parents with "Raising a Child Conservatively in a Sexually Permissive World," and child pornography laws made it illegal to even possess a copy of "Show Me!," an award-winning sex education book for children.

What happened? Levine does not place all the blame on the right, acknowledging the role cultural feminists played in imposing a regime of overwhelming sexual protectionism.

"The right won, but the mainstream let it," she says. "Comprehensive sex educators had the upper hand in the 1970s, and starting in the 1980s, they allowed their enemies to seize more and more territory, until the right controlled the law, the language, and the cultural consensus."

Add to this the fact that the sexual liberationists of yesterday are parents today, facing all the typical parental fears. As the joke goes, a conservative is a liberal with a teenage daughter. Many people feel a pervasive sense of dread about children and sex, but as Levine notes, things are not appreciably worse now than they were in the past. Children's exposure to sexual images is hardly new, and research indicates that rates of teen sexual activity are not "galloping upward."

Between Exaggeration and Evidence

As Levine documents throughout the book with copious studies and reviews of news sources, fears of rampant pedophilia, child abduction, ritual abuse, and Internet sexual predators are at best exaggerated, at worst completely unsupported by evidence.

For example, studies commissioned by Congress show that between 50 and 150 children are kidnapped and murdered by strangers each year, yet in a Mayo Clinic survey three-quarters of parents said they are afraid their children will be abducted. And a 1994 U.S. government report analyzing over 12,000 accusations of Satanic ritual abuse found "not a single case where there was clear corroborating evidence."

Nevertheless, parents are nervous -- even squeamish -- about their children's and teens' sexuality, often seeking to deny their offspring the sexual freedoms they themselves demanded at the same age. (Physician Victor Strasburger has even penned a paean to hypocrisy entitled "Getting Your Kids to Say 'No' in the '90s When You Said 'Yes' in the '60s."

In the past two decades youthful sexual desire has become widely pathologized. As Levine notes, "It's as if (parents) cannot imagine that their kids seek sex for the same reasons they do: They like or love the person they are having it with. It gives them a sense of beauty, worthiness, happiness, or power. And it feels good."

The War on Youth

The panic surrounding youthful sexuality can perhaps best be compared to the war on drugs: Both are based on ideology rather than science, and no amount of evidence can change the minds of true believers. Both mask underlying social agendas in which concern for children is used to control the behavior of adults. And both engender problems of credibility as young people reject exhortations to "do as I say, not as I did."

Many adults recognize that they made mistakes in their youth and understandably wish to spare children similar missteps, especially in the age of AIDS. Yet too often, Levine contends, censorship and abstinence-only sex education are really an effort to hold back children's coming of age, offering parents an illusory "freedom from watching their kids grow up."

But denying young people knowledge about sex will not help them become responsible sexual citizens. As Levine notes, children today know about IPOs and the hole in the ozone layer, just as they know about abortion and sadomasochism. Parents cannot block out all uncomfortable knowledge.

In order "to give children a fighting chance in navigating the sexual world," Levine says, "adults need to saturate it with accurate, realistic information and abundant, varied images and narratives of love and sex."

If a person truly has the good of young people in mind, one would hope he or she would be interested in what research has to reveal. "Harmful to Minors" offers a plethora of findings, from studies showing that exposure to sexually explicit images does not harm children, to evidence that teens' sexual relationships with adults are not uniformly devastating, to research on the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education in delaying sexual activity.

But more crucial than research is listening to what children and teens have to say about their own experiences, honestly acknowledging our own experiences at those ages, and applying a healthy dose of common sense. While we are constantly reminded of the importance of believing young people's allegations of coercion and abuse, too often we give considerably less credence to their avowals of consent and pleasure.

Most of us came across sexual images in our youth, and most of us did not turn out to be sexual monsters. Further, there is no evidence that cultures in which explicit sexual imagery is prevalent (such as Denmark or the Netherlands) produce more sexual pathology than those in which such material is forbidden; in fact, there are indications that quite the opposite is the case.

Sexual Relationships with Older People

In the explosive realm of adult-youth sex, many teens say that such relationships can be consensual and positive. And more than a few of us remember having such positive sexual relationships with adults when we ourselves were teens.

"Teens often seek out sex with older people, and they do so for understandable reasons: an older person makes them feel sexy and grown up, protected and special," writes Levine. "Often the sex is better than it would be with a peer who has as little skill as they do. For some teens, a romance with an older person can feel more like salvation than victimization."

Romantic heartbreak -- and plain old bad sex -– are just as likely with same-age peers as with older partners.

Within the gay community, especially, one often hears fond reminiscences of youthful sexual relationships with adults. For many gay men, a teenage relationship with an older man was their release from a homophobic family and peers and their introduction to a supportive community.

As lesbian syndicated columnist Paula Martinac recently wrote, the differences of opinion between gay men and lesbians regarding adult-youth sexuality represent an ongoing rift within the gay community. Mainstream gay and lesbian groups understandably wish to disassociate themselves from sordid accusations of pedophilia -- and correctly point out that the vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexual men -- but they cannot so easily distance the community from its long history of gay icons who have spoken and written positively about adult-teen relationships.

As for abstinence-only education, young people in Western European countries where children receive comprehensive sex education and where sex is treated as a normal and healthy part of life do not experience more sex-related pathology. Quite the contrary, according to The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior published last year by the Department of Health and Human Services, other Western countries have lower rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted disease, AIDS, rape, incest and child abuse than the U.S.

Levine has taken considerable heat for holding up as a "good model" the Netherlands' age of consent law, under which young people ages 12-16 can legally consent to sex with older people who are not parents or authority figures, but under which charges can be brought if teens or their parents (with the Approval of the Council for the Protection of Children) believe the young person is being exploited. But her support for the Dutch law cannot be taken out of the context of that country's social welfare system and relaxed cultural attitudes about sex.

"In the Netherlands, children are respected as citizens with rights like everyone else, to housing, health care, good day care, school, and college," Levine told AlterNet. "They get sexuality education from the get-go, condoms are available in vending machines everywhere, abortion is free from the national health service, their parents receive generous parental leave and, if they choose to stay home longer with the kids, social welfare benefits to subsidize that important work. While protecting children, the Dutch (and other Europeans) do not infantilize them."

Looking at Child Welfare

The child welfare issue has been all but neglected in the controversy surrounding "Harmful to Minors." Today in the U.S. the poverty rate stands at over 10 percent, with children making up an increasing proportion of the poor. In the only developed nation that does not provide universal health care, some 11 million children under age 18 are uninsured.

A fifth of American women get no prenatal care, and the U.S. infant mortality rate lags behind that of twenty other industrialized countries. And virtually every sex-related problem, from AIDS to incest, is correlated with poverty. It is these conditions, argues Levine -- not pedophiles or pornography -- that are truly harming young people.

"Poor people aren't less moral than rich people," Levine writes. "But poverty, like sex, is a phenomenon rooted in moral priorities, a result of deliberate fiscal and social policies that obstruct the fair distribution of health, education, and wealth in a wealthy country. The result, often, is an unfair distribution of sexual health and happiness, too."

Nevertheless, according to a 1997 Public Agenda survey, Americans persist in defining sex-related problems as moral rather than material, and thus focusing on solutions that are "character building, not situation bettering."

Levine's conclusion that "economic security is necessary for sexual safety" aims at the heart of the religious right's agenda of privatization, parental rights, and consolidation of the authority of the nuclear family over the interests of society and the needs of the younger generation. But such misplaced priorities are nothing new: In the late 19th century, as industrialization drove children into the factories, moralistic adults worried about saving them from sex.

From Levine's point of view, children are not the property of their parents and must be treated as citizens in their own right.

"Legally designating a class of people categorically unable to consent to sexual relations is not the best way to protect children, particularly when 'children' include everyone from birth to eighteen," she writes.

Indeed, Levine finds such an idea reminiscent of the now discredited dogma -- held by both social conservatives and some feminists -- that women, too, were paragons of innocence who did not experience desire, required protection, and were not truly capable of consent. And how, she wonders, has it come to pass that "it is only in the area of violent criminal activity that children (some as young as 11) are considered fully mature"?

How can we expect children and teens to learn about healthy sex and relationships if they cannot experiment and explore, with access to increasing information, freedom, and responsibility as they get older?

How can we hope that young people who have received abstinence-only sex education, been shielded from sexually explicit material in the media and on the Internet, been deprived of non-sexual touch from adults, and had no opportunity for sexual play with their peers will magically transform into worldly, responsible, sexually healthy adults upon attaining the age of majority (whatever that happens to be wherever they live)?

Experts agree that most young people engage in sex by the end of their teens. Clearly, attempts to prevent sex by withholding knowledge have been ineffectual in achieving that goal, but they have impeded efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancy, AIDS and other problems associated with sexual ignorance.

The idea that young people must never have -- or even hear much about -- sex makes it difficult to teach them about the differences between consensual and nonconsensual sex, between healthy and exploitative sex, between safe and unsafe sex.

"If sexual expertise is expected of adults, the rudiments must be taught to children," insists Levine. "If educators want to be credible about sexual responsibility, they have to be forthright about sexual joy. If parents want their kids to be happy now and later, it is their duty, and should be their delight, to help them learn to love well, which is to say respectfully of others and themselves, skillfully in body and heart, morally as lovers, friends, and citizens."

Liz Highleyman is a freelance writer in San Francisco.

"Levine argues effectively that a lot of what teenagers are taught about sex these days makes it seem like a dangerous, dirty business--a message quite different from that of not only, say the free-spirited 1970's but of the strait-laced 1950's as well." —Margaret Talbot, New York Times

"An astute analysis of what's gone wrong between adults and children in the U.S. Drawing on social science and history, Levine makes a strong case that the denial of sexuality is the true cause of harm to minors." —Village Voice

"Harmful to Minors is a sane, provocative, and well-researched effort to make readers think critically about what acts are, exactly, harmful to minors; what we should, and should not, be trying to protect our children from; and how we can separate legitimate worries from irrational panics, and real dangers from false alarms." —Times Literary Supplement (London)

“Harmful to Minors is a potent challenge to conventional wisdom about sex, sexuality, and sex education. Written with verve, humor, and wit, it is a trenchant look at America's failure to extol the erotic, and an insightful observation of our preoccupation with pedophilia, deviance, illness, and misconduct.” —The Progressive

“Harmful to Minors is ‘controversial,’ but it probably shouldn’t be. Levine argues—and backs up with extensive research, interviews and thoughtful analysis—that the American pretense that children and teenagers don’t, or shouldn’t, be sexual or have sexual feelings does more harm to kids than good. . . . This is a professional, accessible, responsible examination of a legitimate social question. . . . A courageous book. Anyone who prefers truth to hysterical anti-sex propaganda should find it illuminating.” —Boulder Daily Camera



“In the end, what makes Levine’s book so alluring is not only that it challenges current notions about teen sexuality, but also that it questions the extent to which parents and educators control young people at all.” —Teacher Magazine

"Judith Levine's careful and well-documented book says something very important: that children are sexual beings and
denying that puts them at greater risk than accepting that fact of life; that we must look at the issue of consent from a psychological perspective, not just a legal one; and that not everyone who has been abused ends up traumatized for life. Levine's strong stance against
abuse, bullying, coercion, and manipulation has one goal: to help people accept children and teens as sexual creatures so we can help
them resist coercion and make healthy sexual decisions throughout life." —Sharon Lamb, author of The Secret Lives of Girls: What Good Girls Really Do-Sex Play, Aggression, and Their

[chefcraig]

[TAFKA A Taylor]

Some of the posts needed answering. This is only a temporary visit.

[Blaze]

Do you think anyone really read that crap other than other child abuse victims like yourself? Your HIStory proceeds you.

Face it dim wit, if you don't defend the sexualization of children (and exploitation) then you have to address the abuse that happened to you. If or if not you do it yourself.

It's not a LaToya admittance, (that was exploitation of the exploitation) but just a ... duhh.. that is wrong...yea, it happened, Injustice exists. Deal with the history... Let your balls drop, or let your ovaries fire... and stand up for yourself. .....Fuck ya, it is scary... but you are not the first and you won't be the last..... but you can break your chains.

[Blaze]

"Here boy, drink your coca-a-cola."
"but I am not thristy"
"do it anyway, you need the energy"