Woolworths withdraws 'Lolita' bed

[Mars Man]

The point that is to be made clear, that ought to be clearly taken on, is that of education. And that, a well-balanced, exhaustive-like education on all maters that intersect here on this very concern. That is where my focus is, and that is the spearhead of my activity--to educate so as to balance out human society much as it can (possibly) be, and by that means atune it more closely with open nature, all the while highlighting the more homo sapien element.

For that reason, although there seems to be a focus here on children, and a focus on a narrow spectrum of all social groups that are and ever have been on the face of the earth, that focus is narrow. Perhaps it is here where there is trouble in getting over a concept of just what it is to be a sex state. For the far future, the educating process must be maintained now.

It is a common spin, at least in the USA, by the concerned 'moral majority' (if you will) to leave out certain data and analysis in their campaigns, and the general masses don't have the resources to verify so much. There have always been, and there will somewhat likely always be the predator and the prey--not only in regards brain-sex disposition and balance, and not only regarding the human state. The percentage of members falling in the set of perverts/pedophiles, however, is very small once you figure in all the statistics.

Child abuse, and that includes sexual abuse as well, is surprizingly often a 'kinship' matter, and occurs regardless of dress or sex--victims are not only female. Enough studies have shown窶｡@ that dressing style by young adults do not raise the likelihood of rape in the average case--of course it can happen due to dressing style, but that is not the norm; rape happens because of sex state by far and large. There are plenty of cases, upon researching, of prebuscent females being abused in spite of clothing style. The public at large is not getting balanced information.

In this same way, how a child is dressed is not going to be so much the factor as how the brain state of the viewer is. Through education, we can eliminate the akwardness created (I'm focusing on much of the world now, but not all of it) by the denial of sex as being a neutral matter of pure nature. Was it not the religious belief-systems of old, the Abrahamic faith-based systems (also tainted by some Zorastrian {and other} philosophy) that told us that the body was dirty? sex was some kind of sin? that humans were above nature?

The company should not have retracted the name of the bed, for that only reenforces the tendency to allow runaway association, steeped in the ignorance of those ( the propagators of such charges) who yet deny the truth--we can still have social bonding and adherence even within the flow of pure nature of which we humans are very much a part !

(and there are more examples and things to be said, but the post will get too long)




窶｡@ For example a multiple study review by B. Kutchinsky in The Effect of Easy Availability of Pornography on the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience; and studies by F.R. Berger, Pornography and Sexual Deviance; L.T. Garcia, Exposure to Pornography and Attitudes About Women and Rape; A Correaltional Study (Journal of Sex Research); etc.;

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

The point that is to be made clear, that ought to be clearly taken on, is that of education. And that, a well-balanced, exhaustive-like education on all maters that intersect here on this very concern. That is where my focus is, and that is the spearhead of my activity--to educate so as to balance out human society much as it can (possibly) be, and by that means atune it more closely with open nature, all the while highlighting the more homo sapien element.

So what would you call a well-balanced education then on these sorts of matters?

For that reason, although there seems to be a focus here on children, and a focus on a narrow spectrum of all social groups that are and ever have been on the face of the earth, that focus is narrow. Perhaps it is here where there is trouble in getting over a concept of just what it is to be a sex state. For the far future, the educating process must be maintained now.
It is a common spin, at least in the USA, by the concerned 'moral majority' (if you will) to leave out certain data and analysis in their campaigns, and the general masses don't have the resources to verify so much. There have always been, and there will somewhat likely always be the predator and the prey--not only in regards brain-sex disposition and balance, and not only regarding the human state. The percentage of members falling in the set of perverts/pedophiles, however, is very small once you figure in all the statistics.

The statistics on perverts/pedophiles are never going to be that accurate of the real numbers of such people in our societies though, there are always going to be more perverts/pedophiles than what the statistics can reveal since no matter where you base such stats on, you cannot count the numbers of perverts/pedophiles that keep their dark desires a secret.

Are you anti-culture though? Do you think it is wrong to have culture?

Whether you agree with our culture or not, there's no point in denying it in the big picture, because it exists. You can't teach kids our culture and then tell them to ignore it because then what good will that do? You think if we all try to ignore or fight our culture, that'll mean that young children will be at less of a risk from perverts/pedophiles even when children wear very sexually suggestive clothes?

Child abuse, and that includes sexual abuse as well, is surprizingly often a 'kinship' matter, and occurs regardless of dress or sex--victims are not only female. Enough studies have shown① that dressing style by young adults do not raise the likelihood of rape in the average case--of course it can happen due to dressing style, but that is not the norm; rape happens because of sex state by far and large. There are plenty of cases, upon researching, of prebuscent females being abused in spite of clothing style. The public at large is not getting balanced information.

Its certainly true that some victims of child abuse did not happen to be wearing sexually suggestive clothing, but its also true that there are many cases of this being the case and that the child wearing sexually suggestive clothing attracted the pedophile even more so because of what they were wearing.

When you see someone wearing sexually suggestive clothing, its sparks the imagination in a sexual way- like the many layers of kimono that japanese women like geisha and oiran/tayu (courtesans) used to wear in days of old, a kimono collar pulled down very low would make the man think more about the tender sensual skin of the of the young maiko or geisha and what her naked body looked like under all those restrictive layers of kimono, bare sections of her skin teasing the mans imagination through the white layers of body paint etc.
Its cultural in the way this effect is gone about, but its instinctive in origin. When a man lives in a society where the accepted norm is for women to generally cover themselves up to a fair extent, deliberate showing of sensual places on a beautiful woman, revealing the bare skin, is always going to make a horny man think sexual thoughts.
A man not attracted to children is not going to get the same buzz out of a young child wearing the same sort of garments, but a pedophile would. At its basic level, this isn't about culture, its about instincts, and its a world wide phenomenon.

The company should not have retracted the name of the bed, for that only reenforces the tendency to allow runaway association, steeped in the ignorance of those ( the propagators of such charges) who yet deny the truth--we can still have social bonding and adherence even within the flow of pure nature of which we humans are very much a part !

Its instinctive for women who want to attract a man to wear clothes or items that may make her "stand out from the crowd"- we've been doing this for thousands of years, and while the way it is gone about is cultural to a certain extent, i believe it is instinctive for us to do so at its base origin.

Male gorilla's stage fights, beat their chests, make loud noises and strike intimidating poses to draw attention to themselves and make them stand out, so that when the females want to mate, they choose such males.
Certain types of antelope even paint their faces with mud to make them seem more appealing and masculine to females.
Some types of birds even hoard interesting items they find and display them at a chosen site to attract females.

When it comes to sex, these things are all to make the animal appear more sexually appealing.

As animals too, we human beings also do things to make ourselves appear more sexually appealing, although the range of such things we do is vast in comparison to more primitive animals. One of ways to attract sexual interest is in the way we dress, and i am sure this has been going on ever since man/woman first decided to dress him/herself.
This isn't a cultural expectation- its instinctive behavior, just like it is with the examples of animals i gave, but its true that the way these instincts take form is often what we call "cultural".

Your aim to try and deny or get rid of such cultural/instinctive things in society does go against our flow of nature, because in essence it is in our nature to do these things.
A child cannot have children, they have no sexual desires, and child sex is not normal and can be very damaging, both emotionally and physically, on the child. A child has no need to do things to draw sexual attention towards themselves and it would be wrong for a parent to let their child do so. A parent should not let things which are strongly associated with the sex industry, particularly child sex industry, enter their child's life, because the parent should protect their child from such things if they can, if only so that their child does not grow up associating such things as normal and encourage able.

A company looking to profit from a brand name, that for decades has been strongly associated with the child sex industry and has pretty much become a trademark or logo of it, is in extremely poor taste, and IMHO, not morally correct.

 

[Goldiegirl]

Mars Man, I understand your points and to a logical and reasonably normal person, what you write is true. The problem lies in the fact that there are many people who aren't or don't want to be the norm. You think on a higher level than most. So you can be idealistic because that is who you are and where your education has taken you. I am afraid many people aren't to that level. The name was wrong for the bed. It was named to get adult attention it certainly wasn't named for children, so that made it wrong from the start. Why not call the bed a princess bed, or something of the sort, Lolita was simply off base.

 

[Mars Man]

Whether I am actually worthy of the compliment, or not, I am thankful...indeed. I have said before, and will say over and over, that I do know that what I am seeing is not what is out there at the moment, abut through education, continued and well-rounded education, those who come after us somewhere on down the road, may be able be better off for it--more atuned to that nature that we are in, and that, actually, is in us.

Tokis-Phoenix chan, I am very willing to go over the fine detail in a very serious manner if you are willing. It will take some time, because there is a lot more to it than just the specific OP theme that we have before us. It will take a good degree of thinking carefully and looking for facts, rather than just relying on single-cultured urban-learned 'common sense' morality. Would you be willing to enjoin me in a study on that?

For example, it can be shown that the idea of 'culture' is that of a social group's state at a moment in time. It can thus be shown that culture is not only fluid, but in fact never remains the same. Are men who dress in skirts more perverted than women who dress in slacks? How can a body be more sexual than it naturally is, in the absence of all other things? Does not the social group involve nothing but children in the first place, anyway? What really is the difference between instinct and culture?

If you are willing, and are serious about it, I do think it would be a very educational thing to undertake! What do you say Tokis-Phoenix san?

 

[Kyoto Returnee]

Not sure if it matters as It would seem pretty much anything goes in Japan related to sex and all are in the know after a certain age period.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

If you are willing, and are serious about it, I do think it would be a very educational thing to undertake! What do you say Tokis-Phoenix san?

Although i think it would be interesting to go into a more indepth debate on the subject Mars Man san, i haven't been able to get much time to spend here recently so i'm not sure i would be able to hold an indepth debate up that well i'm afraid.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I chanced upon this. Might be worth a look.
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Help, my name's Lolita

 

[Mars Man]

Interesting article. It only goes to show how the mind associates. This is a vey typical event of nature, and yet, if we remain aware of that natural working--as we should in other things too--we can pretty much eliminate false schemas that work havoc in social networks, through rational thinking. (unless the advantages of empirical knowledge and logicl process fail to gain the upper hand, in the end)