A Script

[Suburbanite]

This might sound weird, but a friend and I have imagined two literary characters that we each personify when around one another. The characters use the same names as us, which I believe makes our dialogue confusing for other people. Nonetheless, his character and mine are both intellectuals who spend their time over examining everyone and rationalizing and proving perverse arguments. Over the course of nearly months, we have developed such amazingly in depth characters with such a talent for barbaric thinking that we have decided to write some of it down, so that we can use it later. I'd like everyone's opinions on the first, and so far only, piece of literature these two characters have been featured in. This is simply a dialogue, so it isn't in any format, but the message is still not unheard. Keep in mind I am well aware of its perverse nature, but don't assume I don't find a lot, or a little, validity in the argument either. Unfortunately, these characters have consumed my personality quite a bit. Anyways, here it is:

//Josh
It is strange to think that sexual deviance is the single most vile social performance a man can possibly engage in while the more senseless forms of deviance can often be celebrated. Take for example a soldier. This soldier, a man consumed with the concept of pride and respect, can murder a child in combat even if there is next to minimal threat posed to him. On the other hand, we have a man safe on his motherland, simultaneously murdering a youth, but instead for sexual arousal. After the soldier kills the child, it consumes his mind. Not out of fear for God or redemption or even fear of being publicly raveled, but simply worrying about the thoughts of the soldiers who witnessed his gruesome homicide. The next man kills his victim, and instead of contemplating judgment or retribution, he simply proceeds to masturbate over the dead child.

//Tom

The pedophile can free his mind of the world because he is so entranced by his sexual arousal. He is by far the more deserving of celebration. Yet in our world, we see this pathetic weak soldier as some sort of hero, or at the very least, a man not to be questioned about his acts. The soldier murdered the child without need or desire. Afterward he did not find himself in a better place, but a worse one. He felt ashamed for having done it. The second man can feel comfortable with his actions. In both cases, a child is dead, perhaps something tragic to the meager minded people, but regardless the pedophile was able to achieve something from the murder. He felt happy, of all things, once his activity was complete.

//Josh

It isn’t like he would wander the streets, worried someone will call him on his sexual perversions. No one but the deceased know about it. And even if he were discovered, and executed, he would still be content with his actions.

//Tom

Unless the priests get to him.

//Josh

Well of course, but religion cripples all man from their most cruel and glorious nature. It is a product of the weak.

//Tom

Regardless, this pedophile should be commended on his experimenting. It is not an easy choice to make, after all. Killing someone for sexual pleasure takes not only premeditation but also an acceptance of one’s own perversions. What a champion of individual development.

//Josh

Oh but it is quite clear to most that the pedophile was himself a victim of sexual molestation or some such horror as a child.

//Tom

I think it is more likely that the soldier is victim to a lot more bizarre circumstances. To be able to kill without purpose is more deviant than to kill with reasons. The reasons in particular don’t matter one iota. In fact, sexual reasons are a more profound form of excuses than randomness. The soldier is so callus that the death of the child won’t effect him in any way, other than increase his paranoia of being judged.

//Josh

I guess in that respect the soldier lives a more existential life whereas the pedophile has freed himself from the shadowy glaze of the other.

//Tom

I hate it being called the other. The “other” is far more specific than “vague humans.” It is his family and friends, and his brothers in arms.

//Josh

Well with that, the pedophile is perhaps even freer than we first thought. He hasn’t escaped generic social perversions, but instead transgressed beyond the most powerful of these influences. It is easy to lose faith in Jesus, or to convert from heterosexuality to homosexuality, but to do something as taboo as murdering a child and spasmodically relieving yourself over it’s dead carcass is escaping much more powerful forces.

//Tom

This last line was removed, even it was too sick to post.

[tusaki]

Heh, you should write Southpark episodes. As long as it's fiction and meant as humor... and it tells you about the wrongness and excuses a mind can make up to validify its thinking and action...

[Suburbanite]

No, it isn't about humor at all. It is about the glory of perversions. It isn't meant to laugh at though I myself find it a bit amusing, especially the last (missing) line. But this is hardly south-park-ish, IMO. I like that you had to clarify it though. It is only "good" if it is meant as fiction. What if it wasn't? What changes?

[dbrown]

first off, interesting ideas here. a friend of mine do this sort of thing on a different level. we go to parties and argue openly using false logic to see if we can get anyone to join in, whatever fills the night i guess.

next, it doesn't matter if it's fiction or not. all that would change is the seriousness of the implications. were it to be non-fiction, then there are people that seriously think this way about things. granted i'm venturing into very opinionated waters here. but the fact remains that their logic is weak and it defends something that is very legally wrong.

assuming it is a piece of fiction than it is still concerning that you could come to these conclusions although you may or may not truely believe them. more just using them to continue a dialogue.

i'm not sure if this post accomplished anything other than my saying that i don't buy the logic.