Bold Standard

In short, I'm using socialism to stand for any political system in which the government has the power to seize private property through force, or to meddle in the "private sector", creating monopolies with which private businesses cannot compete, etc. I believe that Statism is the tyranny, in all of its variations-- socialism, Nazism, fascism, communism, etc. Capitalism, in its purest sense (unregulated, "laissez-faire" capitalism), I define as a political system which consistently upholds individual rights (personal rights belonging solely to individuals)-- including "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness." I've studied Marx, but I haven't personally read all of Das Kapital. I'm only a student, and haven't studied Chinese socialism in depth, but I understand that in certain contexts, "socialism" is viewed as a "less extreme" form of "communism" (which is a system in which there is no private property or individual rights of any kind). If that's how you define it, I guess socialism is "better" than communism; but only as a matter of degree, not better in kind. You see, what I call "capitalism" is a totally different approach to government, with different goals from socialism-- private property, representative government, individual rights, unregulated free markets, etc., exist in a capitalist system primarily for the purpose of allowing the minds of individuals to rise to their fullest potential, unhindered, to fulfill their own "selfish" ends (pursuit of happiness), "neither sacrificing themselves to others, or others to themselves" (to paraphrase Ayn Rand). And all of the values that these individuals create-- all the wealth, the technology, the innovations, inventions, etc., that they bring into existence, and all of the incalculable benefits which society experiences as a result of this, are noted and appreciated, but are secondary results, and not the primary justification for the existence of the capitalist system. The primary justification is the sanctity of the individual; the triumph of "right" over "might"; recognition of the fact that a human mind requires freedom to think on its own, and not to be forced to pursue goals which are foreign to it; and the recognition that Man is not a "sacrificial animal," but is rather an end in himself. Objectivism is a philosophical system (which extends to all branches of philosophy, not limited to politics, but including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics) which was created and espoused by the 20th century novelist/philosopher, Ayn Rand. Miss Rand was born in Russia in 1905. She witnessed the Kerensky Revolution, and then the Bolshevik Revolution, first hand. She was educated in a Soviet university (she studied Das Kapital). She was a fierce opponent of communism and a staunch individualist, even while she lived in Russia. Knowing that her political ideas were placing herself and her family in danger, she escaped Russia and came to America in 1926. She wrote for the movies, became famous as a novelist, and then as a philosopher. Her most important works explicitly regarding politics are Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (non-fiction, 1966), and Atlas Shrugged (fiction, 1957).

No, Objectivism is not eudaimonism. Life is the standard from which moral principles must be derived. Happiness is just the goal, and reward. The difference between these approaches may seem subtle at first, but they turn out to be tremendous.

That argument is not the standard Objectivist answer to this question. It is the standard Kantian answer. Kantians call it the "universalizability principle." Something is only moral if it is moral for everyone to do in all circumstances. Since Kant is the most influential moralist, many people with (not trying to be insulting, but) a relatively superficial understanding of ethics-- even Objectivists, will try to argue from this position. But the Oist position has been represented in this thread (though not in detail, of course). I don't know if it's been mentioned, but the Ring of Geiges story is actually where the word "egoism" originates. I believe it was Aristotle who argued that a moral person wouldn't want to steal, even if he were wearing the Ring. Um, I don't remember his exact argument, though.

Do you mean this to apply only to sexual desire? If not, hunger would seem to be an obvious exception to this rule. Emotions are physiological experiences. They do involve the mind and values, but they don't end or necessarily always originate there.

You know, if you're willing to start an Objectivist campus club at your college, it's my understanding that you then get access to just about every available lecture series by Rand and Peikoff-- For free. You should check it out, at the ARI website! Okay-- Here's a list of the titles they offer for free to campus clubs. Several of the ones you mentioned are on there, and tons you didn't mention. Edit: Oh, I didn't see that.

Oh, yeah. I mentioned this to my mom, too, because I'd never heard of this "custom." She said that, based on the evidence she's seen, this is a myth. She said Plato has a dialogue or something where he mentions older men educating and developing younger boys while enjoying their youth. But he never says anything to suggest having sex with the boys. She says she thinks modern pedophiles are distorting what was in fact an innocent custom of the Greeks, stretching it to imply a sexual relationship, when in fact the relationship described was entirely "Platonic." But I haven't read this, in Plato's works, or in any other description of Greek culture. Does anyone know where it can be found? [edit-- Also, I might add, my mom's not a scholar of Ancient Greece, and I know about as much about the period as she does. Except that she's heard of this claim from pedophiles, whereas for me it's completely new.]

Okay, well, Mom's promised me to give me some links to good articles and studies showing proof of the psychological damage done to children who are victims of sexual abuse from adults. But in the mean time, I'll relay the brief synopsis of why, she claims, it is damaging. At least, to the best of my understanding, being as I'm not a psychologist. She said it is believed to be connected to the child's developing notion of "self." Cognitively, children under a certain age have not learned to fully differentiate between themselves and the outside world, or other people. An infant is astonished when he realizes that he can control his own fingers and toes, but he can not control his crib, his pillow, a wall, or other objects in the same way-- he can hit them and move them, maybe if they're small enough, but he can't make them move with his mind. The subsequent development of ego, and of personal boundaries, can be seen as a sort of continuation of this process. When an adult attempts to initiate sexual acts with a child, he is essentially intruding the child's personal space, and therefore the child's fragile, immerging sense of self. What the research demonstrates is that these kids-- whether they are actually raped, or experience much milder forms of molestation-- tend to express in various ways that they have experienced a sense of being violated. Throughout their lives, these kids tend to have problems with identity and personal boundary issues. On top of that, since sexual acts with children are illegal, and most pedophiles don't want to be caught, and for various other reasons including a lust for control, or outright sadism, etc, in most cases of molestation, the pedophile will add to the sexual abuse other forms of psychological abuse. The adult might tell the child that if anyone finds out, he will kill the child's parents. Or he might encourage the child to lie using other incentives. Threatening the child's security, encouraging the child to adopt a policy of secrecy and dishonesty, sheltering him from other adults who might have the child's interests in mind, isolates the child and breeds all kinds of psychological problems. It's often noted that at a certain point the child will express to the adult that he feels something is wrong-- that the child is not comfortable with the molestation, for various reasons. At this point it is common for the molester to blame the child. To say that it's the child's fault, and make him feel that he "deserves" it. Of course this causes all kinds of problems. And finally-- there is the horrible, ugly, physical side of sexual abuse. If we're talking about pre-pubescent children, here.. Their bodies are not large enough to sustain sexual intercourse with an adult. If this is attempted, it can cause permanent physical damage, that will scar the child for the rest of his life. [Edit: In fact, it can kill the child.] Um, but my mom says she can supply me with factual data supporting all this in just a few "clicks." So when she does that, I'll post some links here. I just have to convince her to get online and actually do it. : )

Well, even so-- if it's "dangerous" for a man to be sentenced to death after a jury finds him guilty, how much more legally dangerous is it for some vigilante to kill a guy without a trial? That was the point I was trying to make. I think there is such a think as "Natural Justice," and that a brutal murderer deserves to die for his crimes. But the importance of due process, proof, objective law, and a central government holding a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, shouldn't be underestimated.

Hm! Yeah, that's what I remember reading, too. But I can't find it on my OR CD-ROM. I think the place I read about it was in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. Does the Lexicon contain articles not included in Mr. Oliver's CD-ROM? Maybe I'm not doing the search right....

LOL, yes, that's a typo. Thanks, Inspector. "Initiation on the retaliatory use of force." What would that mean?? Actually, though I believe Parker has done a few altruistic deeds in his career, my understanding is that a considerable portion of his income is obtained through selling photographs of himself and the villians in mid-battle, to the newspaper where he works. In that sense, he's one of the few heroes who actually is, literally, "paid" for his efforts. Although some comedic and sometimes even dramatic situations occur from the fact that his boss hates Spiderman (for completely irrational reasons), the fact remains that the publicity-- whether positive or negative, drives the sales of the papers, and when the paper does good, Peter Parker does good. So the relationship between the paper and Spiderman is really kind of symbiotic, in that respect. (Not like the one sided relationship between, say Roark and The Banner).

No political party built consistently on an explicitly Marxist platform is taken seriously in the US. But there are strong elements of socialism built into our political framework even at the present time. Marxist influence can be detected in the positions of both parties (Republicans tend to favor social controls and Democrats favor economic ones). America is not "capitalist," it is a "mixed economy," which means it has elements of freedom (capitalism, individual rights, representative government) and tyranny (socialism, oppression, dictatorship) mixed up together (with the majority of politicians existing somewhere in the "middle of the road" between these two extremes). For the past 100 years or so, America has been moving slowly in the direction of socialism-- but in the next 20 years, I'd say anything can happen. I don't know about a "systematic" Marxist education, but it's certainly true that Karl Marx's ideas are highly visible on American college campuses. It seems to me that Marxist intellectuals have for the most part, lost their fire and commitment in the past couple of decades. Hence the disintegration of the Democratic Party (which was traditionally more open about accepting Marxism than the Republicans). What is the future for the Marxists? I'd say they'll keep trying to convince people that the dismal failure of every attempt at socialism in every country throughout the world is not socialism's fault, and that they'll eventually fade out completely, as their position becomes more and more obviously absurd; and as supporters of capitalism such as Objectivists become more successful at advocating a systematic, viable alternative. But maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

Woah, trippy. There are two of this thread! (I saw that the other one only had three posts on it, and I thought mine got put in the garbage can for being too sarcastic, or something). I didn't think my suggested approaches were that bad. ^_~ <-- (I just learned that new emoticon. I think it's supposed to be an "anime" wink). OOH, that's exactly what my dreams are like. That reminds me of the movie Until the End of the World. Seen it? (I think it's even based on a book!!)

It seems rather obvious to me why this would be so, apart from any genetic influence. Isn't it likely that there is also a high coorelation in mothers who are impregnated, break with the father, get involved in a new relationship, and marry the new guy less than a year after the baby is born-- and in women who rush into lousy relationships with the wrong kinda guy (ie, the type that might murder their newborn)? If genetics play into this at all, I would say it's more likely that there is a possible biologically derived impulse for pregnant women to find a new guy as quickly as possible, regardless of his qualifications for the job; than that guys have a gene compelling them to murder their stepchildren. I know that it's the woman's seed that's getting killed off and not the man's. But over the course of centuries, it seems that such an impulse in women would be more beneficial than the hypothesized impulse in men. Besides which-- how many women will go on to have more kids with a guy who's murdered her child? Reason's got to take back over at some point, in the equation!

[Edit- I got so sidetracked on this topic of genetics that I forgot all about the context of the thread. This might actually belong in a different thread.] You might check your premises, here. There is much variation in the population. But there is also much variation in the genetic makeup of the individuals that make up the population. Of course, we have to be careful in naming what kind of "traits" might be effected by genetics. But one might point to studies of identical twins, separated at birth, and note the drastic similarities in the mates they choose. I've heard of studies that suggest that even the names of spouses in these twins has a high correlation. I don't see that as a threat to volition though-- there's no reason why a person couldn't choose otherwise. Especially an informed person (hence, identical twins who were not separated at birth don't usually choose mates of the same name, etc). But genes studies in humans, I think, can legitimately explain certain tendencies, or potentialities that are latent in a person; even if only subconsciously. I reject out of hand any suggestions that there are ideological genes, such as an "altruist gene" or an "Objectivist gene." But I'd say the evidence is pretty much conclusive that biology plays a role in sexual orientation, at least, if not more detailed "traits" (physical traits) that a person will come to find attractive. I think it's reasonable to assume that a person's environment plays a role in this, too. People can be, to an extent, impressionable. But I'd say, still, volition plays a central role. Volition can override other factors, social or biological. I'd say these "trends" are something a person will "fall back on," if they haven't "focused" or reasoned out their decision, volitionally. But volition has its limits, too. The best evidence seems to suggest that people cannot change their sexual orientation at will, for example. I would say there is enough positive evidence to say that it is at least possible that the power of genetics to influence what a person finds sexually attractive extends beyond gender alone. Again, not, perhaps, to the point of overriding a person's values. But maybe at a certain point it becomes analogous to, for example-- those who naturally like the taste of an alcoholic beverage the first time they drink it, and those for whom it is an acquired taste. They have to motivate themselves to "give it a chance" until their body "learns" to like it. Is it possible that the traits a person finds physically attractive are similar? Might a person have a genetic makeup so that he tends to be attracted to tall, brunette women, lets say, but meet a petite blond that so matches his values that he is able to fall in love ("acquire a taste") and be totally satisfied with her? This isn't something I've studied in depth. I'm just kind of floating these hypothises out there. Would this type of idea conflict with volition in any way? (And if so, how?)

LOL, sorry to be so unhelpfull, but I'm here to make another contribution to those stated: 101 Dalmations (the cartoon) is a lot better than the book. But I sympathize with your predicament-- it's extremely dificult to have to debate from a position that's in open conflict with the observable facts of reality. You could maybe take the position that this is "often" the case, but you're doomed to fail with the "always." Unless you attempt to define "better" by a completely arbitrary, subjective standard; such as, "Books are always better than movies, to me, because I hate movies. They hurt my eyes!" Um, but that would be a pretty weak position. [Edit. How about this one-- Books are better than movies because there is very little chance of a book causing someone to have an epileptic seizure. For someone with epilepsy, the film version of a novel is a dissapointing experience, because they always have to fear losing consciousness, and it just spoils the whole thing. ] [Edit 2. Ooh, you could say the book version of a novel is always a dissapointing experience for someone with a bad bladder, because they have to interrupt the movie at some point to go to the restroom. If it's a book, they can take it with them. ]

Upon further inspection of your paper, I thought I'd point out some of the obvious flaws. First of all, your entire position here seems to be a mere rationalization of your own, "subjective" prejudices and assumptions, rather than a philosophically grounded description of reality. In this regard you are consistent with the Rationalists such as Descartes and Leibniz, and this is the mistake from which most of your subsequent mistakes appear to originate. For a thorough answer to this, I refer you (as did some posters on another thread) to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE). This was the first book I ever read by Ayn Rand, and I found it to be extremely accessible (though I was myself a theist when I read it), and it helped me overcome some fundamental errors in thinking which was immensely helpful (but I didn't become an atheist until a year or so after reading this-- I was reading Atlas Shrugged at the time). I think you would enjoy ITOE, whether or not you agree with it. Yes, understanding Man's nature as a rational animal is important for understanding the basis of objective ethics. How about "unique"? Here's where you go all wrong! There is absolutely no such thing as innate ideas. Man is born tabula rasa. Furthermore, it is an indisputable, necessary fact that human beings are volitional. Therefore, every argument which asserts ethical or psychological determinism of any variety is in conflict with reality, and should be rejected on those grounds. Begging the question. Imperfect, by what standard of morality? Here, you are presupposing a morality in an attempt to prove morality. Perhaps what you mean is-- humans are fallible. A human can fail to identify, or misidentify a fact of reality. That's different from "imperfect," which implies a breach of morality has already occurred. It's also false inasmuch as it implies Original Sin, which is a false doctrine (which assumes that people are flawed by nature even if they've never done anything "wrong," another example of Christianity's rebellion against justice.) Just because something is conceivable, does not mean that it is possible. A proposition does not become "possible" until there is some evidence that it is true. I believe it would be a great help for you (as it has been for me) to study Aristotle's "onus of proof" principle. He said, "The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive." If you say a proposition is conceivable, you've made a positive assertion. You must prove that it is free of internal contradictions. If you claim a proposition is possible, you must prove the existence of positive evidence to support the claim. If you claim a proposition is true, you must prove, conclusively, that it in fact corresponds to reality. It is never the responsibility of the person who takes the negative position to "prove" his position. That's because non-entities leave no evidence. So, it does not follow from the fact that a "perfect" entity is conceivable, that such an entity is possible, and even less does it follow that such a state of perfection actually exists. Nobody has to prove that such an entity does not exist, because you have identified no evidence that it does. Leibniz makes this mistake all the time. But you haven't defined what perfection is. By what standard is something "flawed" or not? What is the "it" from which the essential idea must not be detracted, and what specific qualities detract from "it," and how does one come to know what these qualities are? What if someone is a "perfect" Nazi? Or a "perfect" Charles Manson? Why would this not be possible? Again, for an explanation of how objective knowledge of any kind is possible, see ITOE. For a description and validation of objective ethics, specifically, see VOS and Atlas Shrugged.

I've only skimmed your article, but I wonder what works of Ayn Rand's you've read. Her theory of the objective foundation of morals is concisely laid out in The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS). If you read that, it will make a response to your position much easier (in fact, the task will most likely be therein completed). It's been my experience that discussing Objectivist ethics with anyone who hasn't read that book inevitably turns into a drawn out paraphrase of VOS, in its entirety, on the part of the Objectivists which becomes quite tedious, and unnecessary, since the book is short, inexpensive, and easily acquired.

It's true that only individuals can have thoughts or beliefs. That's why there's no such thing as an "open" philosophy. A philosophy is always invented by some individual. To adopt any given philosophy is merely a statement of agreement with that individual about the specific points contained within his philosophy. So, in the strictest sense, a "Buddhist" is someone who agrees with Buddha. A Moslem is someone who agrees with Mahomet. A Marxist agrees with Marx. A Pragmaticist agrees with Peirce. An Objectivist agrees with Ayn Rand, etc. These people "are" Buddhists, Moslems, Marxists, etc, to the extent that they agree with the originator of the system. An Objectivist would certainly reject the notion of Divine Grace, but on the grounds that it is unfounded or superstitious, not on the grounds that it is elitist. Furthermore, I believe "grace" is a mockery of justice. To say that a murderous criminal and an heroic genius are morally equal, and that each have an identical claim to Heaven if they only subordinate their minds to God or His representative's standards and promise to "do their best" to live up to them, is to elevate and reward murderous, criminal acts, and to punish and diminish the value of heroism and creativity. I believe many of the doctrines preached by Jesus and His followers (in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount) are consistent with an open rebellion against (as they had encountered it, the Roman concept of) justice. At this point the (unstated, but implied) premises of Christianity become even further divorced from Ayn Rand's (stated, and rigorously argued) philosophy. In fact, if people were to seriously attempt criticizing Christianity for inegalitarianism or inflexibility, I think they would actually have a much lower opinion of Objectivism. Jesus said things like, "Whosoever is not against us, is for us" (Mark 9:40). Christianity wants to subsume as many people as it can (better for the offering plate, strategically speaking). If you want to be a Christian in the broadest sense, since Jesus was so vague, all you really have to do is go through the intellectual equivalent of saying, "Sure. Why not?" to whatever the Bible (or its Earthly interpreter) says. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, disassociated herself from anyone who disagreed with her on (what some observers thought were minor) points she considered absolutely essential, provided that they conclusively acted on their conflicting belief. She did this, in a couple of cases, arguably to the detriment of her (short term) popularity and public renown. A lot of people find this offensive because, they seem to argue, "Who takes ideas seriously, anyway?" I'll keep an eye out for this thread (interesting topic), but the short answer is that emotions are not necessarily irrational, but neither are they necessarily rational, therefore they are unreliable guides to action. The reason they are not necessarily rational is that they function automatically based on whatever premises you have adopted, whether your premises are correct or incorrect; and man is fallible, so if you have adopted a false premise, when a situation arises in which it is relevant, your emotional response will then be "inappropriate."

That author seems to have a poor grasp of philosophical concepts. "Empathy and love" are not altruism. I quote Ayn Rand from an interview she did with Phil Donahue (from which a clip appears in the documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life), "You can want to help other people, and with very good reasons, but that's not altruism." Altruism is the dutiful sacrifice of your values to others, when they do not represent a value to you (because, if you value them, then you're still acting selfishly by trying to help them, as long as it's at the expense of lesser values). Most "superheroes" have traditionally been altruistic. But I don't see why there's anything innate in being a superhero that would compel them to be altruists. About killing criminals-- according to Objectivism, the government should hold an initiation on the retaliatory use of force. Criminals have a right to a fair trial, before being sentenced to death. Also, Ayn Rand opposed the death penalty because of the possibility of a false conviction. But a superhero might often come into situations in which he would need to kill a villain in self defense-- or to prevent him from some immanent act of violence, such as if he has his hand on the trigger for a bomb to explode someplace, killing innocent civilians, then a superhero (or anyone, for that matter) would be justified in shooting him in the head, etc, to stop him.

See, here's the thing that gets some people though. Christianity is not a philosophical system. It is a religion-- and as such, represents a predecessor to philosophy, inasmuch as it's an attempt to explain existence. But there's no such thing as a consistent philosophy of "Christianity" that actually holds such and such view point. There are philosophies based on Christianity. But if you define "Christianity" as that which is represented in the writings of Jesus, or even more broadly in the Hebrew Bible/New Testament combo we have now-- it's too inconsistent, and equivocal to pin down to a specific view. Also, it's too inconsistent to live by-- and that is why Christians always have to "pick and choose" which elements of their religion to live by, and which to ignore or even explicitly reject, so that they can survive on Earth, or maybe even be a little happy. What does it mean, to ask, "Can one be Objectivist, and believe in God?" Well, the first thing you have to do is define your terms. What is this "God"? Aquinas thought you can only say what God is not, but never what he is. Spinoza just used God as a kind of synonym for nature, and doesn't really get religious (as far as I'm aware) until he starts trying to explain Descartes "problem of interaction," and comes up with all kinds of crazy theories. And what is "faith"? How necessary is it? Do you believe, with Aquinas, that "the erring reason binds," in other words that reason is absolute, and by your nature you can not help but accept the conclusion your reason has led you to? Or do you believe with Augustine and Luther that reason is your worst enemy as a Christian? It is very easy to develop ultimately opposite philosophical systems that are consistent with some conflicting aspects of religion, but a consistent philosophy can never be established on religion, because religion is almost by definition inconsistent-- when it approaches consistency, it becomes philosophy. So, in my opinion, the most essential question to ask here would be-- why live by an inconsistent, "grab bag" philosophy, when you can live consistently, on principles that you can trust (because you can validate them by reason)? Why tear apart your integrity and self image in a mad rush of expediency and emotional whims, when there is such a more sensible, efficient and effective alternative?

Oh yeah-- the sites where I got those pictures from are Lillian Gish and Gretta Garbo.

You know, AR was already getting along in age before she became really famous. So the majority of pictures of her in common circulation are in her older years (in which, IMO, she's still not half bad). But, if you look at younger pictures of her (I did an internet search, and couldn't find many really good ones, but there are some in the book version of Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life), she was a cute flapper-looking girl when she was young. And who could resist those huge, piercing eyes? The fair skin? The petite build? The outrageous fashion sense? I think she was pretty hot, myself. However, skimming through this thread, I've noticed my taste is quite drastically different from most people here. I would like to second the mention of Greta Garbo: For Garbo, feminine sexuality was something exalted-- and she was gorgeous, and carried herself in a way that let you know she was intelligent, passionate, private, and strong; all of which qualities enhanced her beauty. And I want to add my favorite lady, Lillian Gish (how could she not have been mentioned?? Did I just miss it? ): I could sing her praises for hours. When I watch her act, it's as if my whole consciousness changes to follow her eyes and every gesture and facial expression. She's able to express so much with just the slightest change of expression. And what she's expressing is always something so rare, and deep-- even if the character is doing something shallow; it's the deepest way that type of shallowness could be portreyed. To me, she represents a kind of delicate, extremely rare and exotic type of beauty that strikes me exactly as an ideal-- as an ideal I wouldn't even have the imagination to invent in my own dreams. I also agree with other posters about Marilyn Monroe. And I'll conceed Jolie and Alba are at least extremely photogenic. But the majority of gals mentioned in this thread seem so plain to me. I mean, they seem to be mostly in good shape, and I might drool over them a little if I met them in person-- but that's different from setting them up as the ideal of feminine beauty, isn't it? Well, physical beauty is a highly personal thing, for sure. Hm.

Causality can be proven through induction (observing that entities act) and through deduction from the axioms. Since I already have ITOE open, here's a line from Dr. Peikoff's essay: The existence of causality and of the physical world are positive claims, and it is very important that one knows how to prove them, to defend them against the Hume's and Berkeley's of the world who deny their existence.

It's not axiomatic, because it's not an irreducable primary. Knowledge of the "physical world" is derived from antecedent knowledge. There's a whole section on this in the appendix to ITOE. (There's more, too. I recommend (re-)reading that whole section, to anyone who's interested in this.)

Ah, you're suggesting that underaged girls might actually be sometimes more psychologically attractive, because they're less jaded? That's an interesting hypothesis that might have some merit. I wonder how many grown women are jaded in part because they were taken advantage of by lots of licentious adults when they were underaged? Oh, you're talking about one of those goddamn MANBLA Libertarians? ::YUCK:: Well, my mom's a psychologist, and she's got tons of literature on that kind of stuff, psychological damage from sexual abuse etc. I'll try and put some legitimate stuff together for you.