So I started thinking....why do we react with such horror when we talk about the sexual exploitation of children but seldom bat an eye when we're channel flipping in the middle of the night and run across a save the children commercial with kids dying of malnutrition and whatnot. Wouldn't it be better for some 8 year old to 'yum yum' some guy for 30 bucks if it meant they would survive, being well fed and taken care of? Most of us would say no, God no...and it makes you wonder. What's worse than a painful horrible death after all yet we all know kids are croaking around the world for lack of the crap we chuck daily without a thought in the world. Hell, if it were somehow economically feasable to transport garbage, we could feed a few third world nations by just letting them rumage through our dumpsters.
Back to the yum yuming for a moment. Is lasting emotional damage complete result of culture and stigma or is there something more fundamental? We've heard some libs argue for instance that the negative connotation with some sexual practices is all because of our uptight conservative views in this country. That if we had a free and open society there would be no problems and everyone can run around doing whatever they wanted and be all healthy and satisfied. This is almost the arguement you always see NAMBLA making, and god knows we've seen some people on sissyfight vehemently defend them. So what's the difference? If there were absolutely no cultural stigma, and instead an accepting society, can you have an 8 year old yum yum 30 year old guys without any problems? In cambodia, it's apparently prevalent as hell and just accepted. Do those kids grow up and think to themselves that they were some of the lucky ones that had enough to eat, had shelter at night, had someone watching out for them? Where does the line get drawn?