"Jailbait"

1.1 First of all, in essence, sex is natural, normal, and good. All of us (absent artificial insemination) are the result of a sexual encounter. There is nothing to be ashamed of in desiring a sex partner. The real issue is not some archaic morality, but the wellbeing of the partners.

1.2 I say this because the whole Age of Consent (AOC) debate smells of sex-hatred, erotophobia. Even though we know that sexual desire is basically good, I predict that some of you will become angry, defensive, and self-righteous in the next few minutes. Please use reason and keep your emotions in check. I promise to do the same.

1.3 When a person (male or female) becomes sexually mature, he or she often becomes sexually active. Age of Consent laws are based on the premise that these "underage" people cannot give mature consent for sexual activity, and that therefore it is wrong and illegal to have sex with them.

1.4 Now if a young person, say 15 years of age, is sexually active already, then he or she is already giving consent to sex. If no one may have sex with them, then they may not have sex with each other. If both partners are "underage", neither can give consent: both are breaking the law and both should be punished. Strangely, I have never heard of this happening.

1.5 However, I am aware of cases in which a young man has been arrested and prosecuted for having sex with his girlfriend, even though she was just one year younger than himself. A young man becomes a "predator" or even "pedophile" when he turns 18 before his girlfriend does[1]. This is grossly unjust.

1.6 The AOC situation becomes even more unjust and strange when different countries have different ages of consent. For example, in the USA it is either 16 or 18 yo, depending on the state. In France, the AOC is 15, and in Colombia it is 14. This indicates that no one really knows what is the "right" age to begin giving consent to sex.

1.8 Consider the following: if a man lives in France or Sweden, he can have a 15 yo sexual liaison with no problem. If he attempted that in the USA, regardless of the girl's sexual activity, he would be imprisoned and treated as a pariah for life. Even in some of the States, if his liaison is 16, there is no legal problem with their relationship. (Taking intimate photographs is another matter.)

1.9 Please spare the tough "Momma Bear" talk and all the righteous indignation; young people are having sex whether you like it or not. And some of them do prefer older partners. There are even Internet websites on which girls give each other advice to attract their teachers. These "underage" young women are doing more than giving consent; they are initiating liaisons with older men. We need to drop the moral facade and face the reality of intergenerational sex.

2.0 To those who say, "eew, gross", or "perverted": the same was said about homosexuality, and before that, about interracial relationships. Both of these were (and by some ignorant people still are) considered abnormal or evil. In the USA, homosexuality was actually considered a mental illness until 1973.

2.1 To those who suggest that intergenerational sex is inherently abusive, or damaging to the younger partner: young people can abuse each other both physically and emotionally. Relationships between teenagers can be very damaging, as I know.

2.2 I have no personal stake in the Age of Consent debate, since I am physically out of the game. However, I do have a stake in truth, especially where it affects so many other people's lives. Therefore I will reemphasize: if young people cannot give consent for sex with an older person, then they cannot give consent to anyone. This presents the question, should young people be held accountable?

2.3 If we hold young people accountable for shoplifting or any other crime, we should hold them accountable for "underage" sex. If not, why? Please do not beg the question by assuming that sex is acceptable, but shoplifting is not. The issue is accountability. Do we hold "underage" people accountable for their behavior, or not?

2.4 Returning to intergenerational sex itself: there is one substantial argument against it. Young people's brains are too immature to make adult decisions. Barbara Strauch, in her book The Primal Teen, (First Anchor Books Edition, 2004), shows that brain development is not complete until approximately 25 years of age. Modern neuroscience explains why teenagers take risks with so many things such as alcohol, drugs, and sex. No matter how adult their bodies look, they are children in their minds.

2.5 Both girls and boys reach full physical development long before their 25th birthday. A boy reaches fertility at about 10-11 yo, a girl perhaps 13-15. Now consider the case of the Japanese swimsuit model, Saaya Irie. She has a body many Western women would envy, and most men would desire. Saaya Irie is 11 years of age. Should she be allowed to have a boyfriend? Should she be modeling at all [2]?

2.6 Incidentally, the lag between young peoples' body and brain maturation presents a conundrum for those who believe in creationism or "Intelligent Design". Teenage boys in particular have a sex drive like a wild animal, and by 15 years of age, girls can be as fecund as rabbits. This means the "intelligent designer" has designed a developmental disaster. If he were a human designer, he would be fired.

2.7 Therefore, I must correct myself. In light of the neuroscientific and behavioral evidence, I no longer see intergenerational sex as appropriate. Adults should not be having sex with young people; young people should not be having sex at all.

1. Getting it straight: the correct term for attraction to sexually mature young people is ephebophilia or nymphophilia. It is not "pedo"anything.

2. See Girl Model$

Cutting Babies' Private Parts

1.1 That is exactly what circumcision amounts to: mutilation of an infant or child's private parts, without their permission and with no real justification. Circumcision is based in religion and cultural ideology. There are no strong medical reasons for infant circumcision, and therefore no major medical authority recommends it as a routine.

1.2 It is really amazing that we allow this primitive practice to exist in the 21st century, even in supposedly civilized Western nations. It is more amazing that some people try to defend the mutilation of boys' privates, making every kind of specious argument. Other people try to say that female circumcision (female genital mutilation, FGM) is worse than male genital mutilation (MGM); for them, it is all right to mutilate boys, only.

1.3 To those who say circumcision prevents disease: there is some evidence this may be true. Boys who are circumcised may be less at risk for some STD's, including AIDS. But why is this? Probably because the boys do not practice genital hygiene. Anyway, the only real protection against STD's is a condom, not circumcision. Furthermore, the medical/ hygienic argument could also be made for girls. If cutting baby boys keeps them cleaner, and thus healthier, then cut baby girls to keep them cleaner and healthier, too. If not, why?

1.4 In any case, the evidence for medical benefits of circumcision is scanty and debatable. But if we do cut a baby's privates because it may prevent disease, we should even more cut out his tonsils and appendix, to prevent tonsillitis and appendicitis. How about that? Cut all the baby's "unnecessary" parts to prevent possible future diseases.

1.5 Then some insist that cutting a baby girl's privates is much worse than cutting a baby boy's. They go into all kinds of anatomical details to show that MGM is nowhere near as bad as FGM. What difference? They are still cutting a baby's privates.

1.6 Even if cutting a baby girl were more damaging somehow, would that make it all right to damage boys? Since partial FGM (removing the "hood", which is performed in some places) causes approximately the same degree of tissue loss as MGM, does that make it ethical to partially mutilate girls? Baby cutting is baby cutting.

1.7 Is it ever ethical to cut anyone else's body, without their permission and without strong medical reasons? How much more, then, their private parts, especially of helpless babies. Why are we, in the supposedly developed nations, allowing and even defending this barbaric practice?

1.8 In the early 1990's, when FGM came into the public eye, women's rights advocates attacked it vigorously, as they should have (of course they were unconcerned with MGM). Then, when FGM was defended as a valid cultural tradition, many of the the feminists fell silent. Why are feminists today not attacking FGM, which has even spread to Western nations in which Islamists live? Where are the bold feminists to save baby girls now?

1.9 Some feminists question whether Westerners have the right to impose our cultural values on those who practice FGM. If these people were, let us see, raping and stoning women to death, would it then be all right to "impose our cultural values"? If not, then it seems that cultural relativism trumps women's rights, even baby girls' rights. Shame on those feminists who have abandoned girls and women in favor of "multicultural correctness".

2.0 The real reasons for circumcision, whether of boys or girls, are cultural tradition or religious beliefs. In these United States, we do not allow people to harm children, even as an expression of religious beliefs. The US Supreme Court has tried several cases involving religious people who endanger their children as a part of their religion, and the children's interests win out. It is in the children's interests now to abolish the barbaric practice of circumcision.

2.1 It is so obvious that the mutilation of babies is hideous and should be abolished, that I suspect a bias at work. To my knowledge, although some countries have outlawed FGM, circumcision of boys has not been abolished anywhere. What could be keeping MGM so well protected?

2.2 Who circumcises boys most regularly? And who has the ideology to require circumcision? The Islamists circumcise boys and girls, but they have not been in the West in large numbers until recently. Also, they cut babies in secret ceremonies, out of the public eye.

2.3 The only other group that has an ideology of circumcision is the Jews. The practice began with Abraham in Genesis, and is codified through Moses. The Torah (the "word of God") requires that all males be "circumcised in their foreskins", and faithful Jews around the world keep this law, inflicting agony and mutilation on baby boys. And the law of the land gives tacit consent to this barbarity.

2.4 When anyone tries to abolish circumcision, Jewish voices loudly complain that no one has prohibited their religious practices "since the Nazis". Of course, any comparison to Nazis silences rational discourse, and the cutting of little boys' privates continues. I conclude that circumcision is permitted largely because of the Jews. In this case, archaic religious rites trump children's rights.

2.5 However, I would like to point out that Jews are also in the forefront of the anti-circumcision movement. Organizations such as the Circumcision Information Center (CIC) are staffed largely by Jewish physicians and others. To their great credit, these people have seen through their religion's abusive demands; they have seen that human rights override "divine" laws.

2.6 Bible-believing Christians, who (as I once did) practice the "rod of correction" or spanking of children, also violate their rights. In what situation, other than spanking, do we allow one person to to hit another? If an adult hits another adult, not in self-defense, it is legally an assault. How much more, then, when an adult hits a child. Spanking is nothing more than child abuse, and should be abolished.

2.7 Whether the issue is withholding medical treatment in favor of prayer, or spanking, or cutting a baby's private parts, the answer is clear. The rights of children supercede the demands of tradition or religion.

If we are dust, only truth remains

1.1 The hedonism I showed back in December 2010 would be fine, except that life is actually full of pain. We get sick, disabled, and we shrivel with age and we die. I cannot even enjoy sex anymore; Peyronie's and impotence have taken that from me. So "let us eat and drink" is false, not true.

1.2 I cannot find a reason to live, unless there is a transcendent nature. All else is dust. All good we do, all our efforts, resolve to dust in the end. And eventually this earth will also resolve to dust. As I said over 10 years ago, when a Christian: if all we are is chemistry, with no transcendent nature, then life is meaningless.

1.3 So I say "agnosto theo": to the unknown god. I have studied mounds of evidence for Near-Death Experiences (NDE's), past lives, and other phenomena, and have also read the skeptics' responses. I conclude that I simply do not have enough evidence to decide whether I will live beyond this (diseased. disturbed and disturbing) life; at the end of the day I do not know if I have any meaning.

1.4 One thing I know: I love truth. I love it more than any religion or political ideology. Truth is more than my life.

1.5 What is truth? It is the most reasonable conclusion from the best available evidence. For example, if we find fossils of organisms becoming gradually more complex as the rock strata ascend toward the present, the most reasonable conclusion is that life has evolved from simple to more complex forms.

1.6 Special creation and "intelligent design" are not conclusions from evidence. They are religious ideas which people try to support by abusing the evidence. They are prejudices which deny the truth. In fact, creationism is a pernicious lie which retards human progress.

1.7 I will stand for the truth, because it is all I have left. I will stand for truth, because it is the only hope for humanity. I will stand for the truth, because it is greater than my life.

1.8 Mahatma Gandhi said, "There is no God higher than truth." Therefore all gods and our most cherished ideas must be subject to the rule of evidence.

1.9 There are actually two kinds of truth. Some truths are subjective. For example, "lobster tastes like stone crab" is a subjective truth. So is "I saw God, angels, ghosts, etc." This may be true in my mind, because of personal experience, but it cannot be shared with others. Objective truth, on the other hand, is based on reasoning from evidence. It can be shared with others, and so is useful for humanity.

1.10 If someone says, "there is no objective truth," I will drop a rock on his foot. This will establish two truths: the law of gravity, and that rocks falling on the body cause pain. Truth is established by such simple means, or by elaborate experiments and studies.

2.1 Since truth depends on evidence, and new evidence may become known, I must accept that any of my "truths" may be disproved by new evidence. This is why scientists and others who live by reason must be humble: we must give up our cherished beliefs; we must love truth more than anything else.

What shall I do, except relish this one life, and show others its beauty? This is Christina Lindberg, circa 1972, 20ish. She is now 59, and still a beauty.

12-03-10

Having seen that all religions are erroneous, I am left with this world, this life. I am thus free of the supernatural, without hope but also without restriction. What shall I do but enjoy whatever and whomever I can, and if possible pass on this freedom to others?

What I Really Want

The times that I have been happiest were those in which people listened to me. Probably this comes from not having a mother to listen, but the fact remains: I have a tremendous need for attention, especially listening. The best time of my life, so far, was being surrounded by women, all listening to my words. This is what I really loved about yoga teaching.

12-01-10

1. I see the natural world, and nothing beyond. Loka
I see nature, but no supernatural beings.
Science (evidence -> conclusion) shows that
a. all extant religions are erroneous, and
b. there is no evidence of supernatural beings,

and therefore

c. spirituality comes from nature.

2. I will seek enjoyment in this life. Bhoga

3. Through the enjoyment of natural things, I can attain spiritual bliss. Ananda