Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duke 2.0]

On topic, lots of kids play weird games when they're really little, because they don't know any better.  By the time they're 12 or so, they probably should have gotten all the sexual experimentation out of their system until college.

By the time they hit twelve, they're either on the cusp of, or already having puberty...

On the cusp of having puberty is a weird time when not only do you have no sex drive but you suddenly have a fascination with your own anatomy.

 And note these were Jewish folks in 1940's Germany. Despite being a major country I don't think they had the best food available to them. Not starving, but not likely what we would consider a healthy diet.

 ...

 It has been a while since I have read those diaries, so I don't remember any mention of how well-off they were in terms of food.

[CobaltKobold]

As for Count o' Monte Cristo, are you sure it was censored?  Maybe it was a different translation with a different chapter makeup?  Is there stuff in the book that would be censored? 

No, I'm not; perhaps; and likely(drug-induced sexual fantasy for one), respectively. The introduction makes note of this as it realises that it only really can be classified as a children's book in terms of theme- it's an escape, adventure, revenge fantasy...

[Vector]

It's actually a piece of metal disguised as a kobold.  (Referring to Duke's pic)

Lufia FTW ~

Because every twelve-year-old asks her best friend if they can touch each other's breasts, right?

And if they do, what exactly is wrong with it?  Will it turn them into some kind of crazed lesbian rapist?

I have no idea if they'll turn into some kind of crazed lesbian rapist.  I generally thought the point of friends was to hang out and talk about interesting subjects, not sit around groping each other.  Mostly, I find it a bit squicky.  "Hey video games are awesome OH WAIT YOU'VE GOT A BODY LET ME TOUCH IT."  I've never really had any female friends, and the guys didn't pull any of this shit with me (though they also routinely forgot I was a girl, which made pronoun usage interesting).  As such, I didn't think that girls would be particularly likely to do it, either.

And yeah, while we're at it, Vector's evidence that prepubescent "sexual" experimentation causes moral corruption as opposed to being a totally normal and natural part of development

@_@

I never said anything about prepubescent sexual experimentation causing moral corruption.  Other people are the ones complaining about dudes giving each other oral sex on the playground.  I'm personally anti-experimentation, but more for "I can't navigate that social hellhole" than moral reasons.

Again, it's not "girls kissing girls" that bothers me.  It's "people doing things whose consequences and ramifications they do not understand."  If the entire comprehension is "Huh, this feels good," then the person in question probably shouldn't be doing it.

As for Count o' Monte Cristo, are you sure it was censored?  Maybe it was a different translation with a different chapter makeup?  Is there stuff in the book that would be censored?  Books generally aren't something I've seen to get hugely bowdlerized, except when kids are involved.  And honestly, if the thought of keeping books with sexual content away from young kids bothers you, you probably need to take a deep breath, put LCS down, and realize that, even on Bay12, there is a such thing as being too liberal.

French novels in general have a problem with being censored.  The Phantom of the Opera had Christine's preparation for suicide removed.  The Hunchback of Notre Dame commonly loses references to self-mutilation and erotic detail--and yes, the works suffer from the removal of such.  Worse, both novels are often marketed as "complete and unabridged," though they have been censored.

[CobaltKobold]

Again, it's not "girls kissing girls" that bothers me.  It's "people doing things whose consequences and ramifications they do not understand."  If the entire comprehension is "Huh, this feels good," then the person in question probably shouldn't be doing it.

I think the point that they're trying to make is that the vast majority of the consequences and ramifications to comprehend...are arbitrary social constructs, creating this "social hellhole" you don't want to navigate.

Now, if they're arbitrary, and we understand this, why keep them? Why not aim to replace the social structures that lead to difficulty? (Not with ones which ignore the facts, mind. Emotional attachment is something to think about.)

To tie this back into the discussion, one of the words explicitly omitted from ScrabbleDictionary the 3rd (or howe'er it's titled) is "lezzy". Admittedly many of these would arguably fall under the official exclusion of "slang" but omitting a word communicates the disapproval of the word and concept, and helps perpetrate/perpetuate this stance.

  Worse, both novels are often marketed as "complete and unabridged," though they have been censored.

Thank you for this information.

Do you know if Le Comte de Monte Cristo [sic?] has defined chapterization? That would be an alternate explanation.

[Duke 2.0]

Again, it's not "girls kissing girls" that bothers me.  It's "people doing things whose consequences and ramifications they do not understand."  If the entire comprehension is "Huh, this feels good," then the person in question probably shouldn't be doing it.

I think the point that they're trying to make is that the vast majority of the consequences and ramifications to comprehend...are arbitrary social constructs, creating this "social hellhole" you don't want to navigate.

Now, if they're arbitrary, and we understand this, why keep them? Why not aim to replace the social structures that lead to difficulty? (Not with ones which ignore the facts, mind. Emotional attachment is something to think about.)

 This is all assuming it is all arbitrary. You will need to fight around 99.999% of the world to make that point valid. Not to mention many arbitrary social constructs do lead to physical hellholes(Least we forget the Free Sex movement of the 60's that caused STDs to wreck perhaps millions of people). The point is, this argument is opening a whole 'nother can of worms that should be for another topic.

 Also, I'm thinking this is along the lines of some boys in the bathroom using the urinal and noticing that one of them is circumcised, and thus weird. So they huddle around to look. After mayhaps a minute of rather odd conversation, they head back to class before the teacher tries to get at them for staying away from class too long. I assume it was something like that event, which seems rather harmless as long as they are like 11 and below.

[Agdune]

Kids of both genders generally experiment pretty regularly. The reason boys don't experiment quite so much however is just because they're all conditioned to be homophobes :p

[Morrigi]

Kids of both genders generally experiment pretty regularly. The reason boys don't experiment quite so much however is just because they're all conditioned to be homophobes :p

Not all of us 

[Cthulhu]

I didn't, my brother did once and I was there, but I didn't participate and for the record the other kid was a sociopath (For real, we found out later he has antisocial personality disorder and apparently threatened to kill his mom or something)

He doesn't remember it though.

[Dependent]

This might be an unorthodox place to make my first post, but I find this topic suspiciously interesting. First, my opinion on the actual article:
Wow. As I'll explain a little farther down my post here, I'm not exactly conservative when it comes to sexual content. I haven't read every post in the thread, but I'll assume somebody has already said, "If kids don't learn it somewhere, where and when will they learn it?" Age and maturity have nothing to do with the knowledge on these subjects. Being legally able to have sex doesn't make the individual any more knowledgeable on the subject. As parents, how might we raise our children? Sheltering them from everything in the world? Telling them their pet ran off to the circus, instead of the truth of it becoming deceased? I suppose they're all debatable subjects, but my honest opinion lies in the fact that we cannot shelter our offspring from everything. Not only is it impossible, but it's downright irresponsible. Personally, I'd much rather my child learn these things from me. Not a dictionary, and not a potty-mouthed classmate. However, that's no reason to remove such images from a dictionary. They may not be mature enough at that age level to comprehend what they're seeing beyond something to giggle at, but they're mature enough to understand what they're seeing is of sexual nature. As for the definition of oral sex, why might I become offended if my child came home and informed me (s)he learned about oral sex at school that day? I'd like to believe I'd be able to sit down with him/her and discuss the subject in a mature fashion. An educational fashion.

On the previously mentioned topic of experimentation, I suppose it's less of something to debate morally on, but more of a subject that changes for each and every individual. Not only do personalities matter in this situation, but culture and upbringing also greatly change the likelihood of a child experimenting sexually prior to middle/high-school. (Or even afterwards.)

And on an unrelated note; Hello, Bay12 Forums. I'm Dependent, and I'll be posting in your general discussion section, along with your 'mafia' section. I look forward to meeting you all!

[Vector]

I think the point that they're trying to make is that the vast majority of the consequences and ramifications to comprehend...are arbitrary social constructs, creating this "social hellhole" you don't want to navigate.

Now, if they're arbitrary, and we understand this, why keep them? Why not aim to replace the social structures that lead to difficulty? (Not with ones which ignore the facts, mind. Emotional attachment is something to think about.)

*sigh*

This is going to be a hard one to explain, I see.  Think of people as a web, where different people occupy different nodes.  Some have strands connecting each other, some don't.  There are different ways of disturbing this web: insults to one person can change your relationship with that person's entire section of the web.  Becoming friends with a particular individual can break strands between that individual and the rest of the web, if you're not a very desirable person.  Sex is one of those things that does all kinds of screwing with the system, due to emotional ramifications.  I'm not talking about social constructs, here.  I'm talking about consequences.

So if you're talking about removing the things that make it hard for me to deal with people in general... well, that's rough, because the problem pretty much amounts to "they've got thoughts and feelings, which I constantly forget about and can't do much with under the best situations."  It's not a question of "can she memorize and act upon the arbitrary rules?"  I can, without too much difficulty--everyone knows they're arbitrary, so it's not expected that I have some sort of natural sense of what to do.  What I cannot do is deal with the "easy" part.

As far as the general population goes, I'll admit that I probably have no clue as to what the "standard" problem situations are.  If we're just talking about sexual experimentation in general... well, I have no clue.  I'll admit that I've probably been indoctrinated by the 50s mentality, but my general attitude is "don't do it unless it's meaningful."  Don't give out hugs to people you don't care about, don't kiss people just because it feels good, and don't have sex with each other because "hey I saw it in the dictionary" or "seemed interesting."

If you wouldn't say "I love you" to a random classmate, don't screw one, either.  There's meaning to be found in both acts, and I dislike attenuating meaning through overuse.

To tie this back into the discussion, one of the words explicitly omitted from ScrabbleDictionary the 3rd (or howe'er it's titled) is "lezzy". Admittedly many of these would arguably fall under the official exclusion of "slang" but omitting a word communicates the disapproval of the word and concept, and helps perpetrate/perpetuate this stance.

Seriously, did you look at the other words?  I think what they're expressing disapproval of is "hate-oriented pejoratives," not "lesbians"--or perhaps they're trying to make some deep statement about distaste for shitheads and assholes that I'm just not understanding.  The concept in question is not "lesbianism," but "treatment of lesbianism."  I see no issues with wanting to keep such terminology off the board.

  Worse, both novels are often marketed as "complete and unabridged," though they have been censored.

Thank you for this information.

Do you know if Le Comte de Monte Cristo [sic?] has defined chapterization? That would be an alternate explanation.

Spoiler: Wikipedia, to the rescue! (click to show/hide)

The Count of Monte Cristo was originally published in the Journal des Débats in eighteen parts. Publication ran from August 28, 1844 through to January 15, 1846. It was first published in Paris by Pétion in 18 volumes (1844-5). Complete versions of the novel in the original French were published throughout the nineteenth century.

The most common English translation was originally published in 1846 by Chapman and Hall. Most unabridged English editions of the novel, including the Modern Library and Oxford World's Classics editions, use this translation, although Penguin Classics published a new translation by Robin Buss in 1996. Buss' translation updated the language, is more accessible to modern readers, and restored content that was modified in the 1846 translation due to Victorian English social restrictions (for example, references to Eugénie's lesbian traits and behavior) to Dumas' actual publication. Other English translations of the unabridged work exist, but are rarely seen in print and most borrow from the 1846 anonymous translation.

A quick check showed that most (internet-standardized) versions run at 117 chapters.  Please note that the censored version is still considered "unabridged," and is the most widely circulated version today.

[Cthulhu]

I have an idea?

Why don't we create a ratings system for books?  Just like movies and videogames, books could have a little section on the back with a recommended age and list of objectionable content.  That way, Germany and Australia can ban the books that offend their delicate sensibilities, while the rest of us can use the system to tell our kids what they can and can't read.

It'd cost a lot though, especially since you'd have to go back and retroactively rate thousands or maybe millions of books.  Yes, the money thing...  Hm....

[JoshuaFH]

That's crazy Cthulhu. The ESRB system doesn't rate games that were made before it's creation, and I don't see why a book rating system wouldn't do the same.

[CobaltKobold]

This is all assuming it is all arbitrary. You will need to fight around 99.999% of the world to make that point valid.

Because it has always been thus-and-so is a reason only insofar as cost of implementing a new system is concerned. I am aware I rage against the heavens* and Earth.

The concept in question is not "lesbianism," but "treatment of lesbianism."  I see no issues with wanting to keep such terminology off the board.

Whole new can of worms right there...or two. First is too off-topic.

As for Scrabble words, words are words. Whether something is a word is something that affects play and scoring and strategy. The only explicitly-excluded words by the rules are "capitalized words, words marked as foreign, abbreviations, or words requiring an apostrophe or hyphen".

Buss' translation updated the language, is more accessible to modern readers, and restored content

Phew, my translation is the Buss one. (It, too, runs 117 Ch.)

Why don't we create a ratings system for books?

Because it'd be taking the decisions to the wrong place.

[sonerohi]

CobaltKobold, I think they meant non-medical treatment, more so of things like discrimination and acceptance.

Also, Josh, the ESRB doesn't rate games now either. They understand that it is a futile exercise when parents will alway just ignore the labels and then bitch over their children playing porn video games to the media.

[Cthulhu]

Of course, the Scrabble police won't knock on your door if you use "lezzy" in a casual game, it's just for tournaments and official stuff.  I still wouldn't use it, I probably wouldn't even notice it in my stack of chips, it's kind of a juvenile thing to call someone.  If you're dead-set on antagonizing a lesbian, there are plenty of words that don't make you sound like a second-grader.