Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard on a 7 year-old girl being passionately kissed

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard says a seven-year-old girl should see nothing wrong with being passionately kissed.

From Tony Ortega.

http://tonyortega.org/2016/05/09/66...stantiated-from-pulp-writer-to-god-among-men/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Anyway, on this anniversary, we wanted to admit to having let you all down. During our blog series on Dianetics, we managed to pull out a lot of amazing material with Vance, but somehow, we glossed over one passage that really does deserve to get some attention. It comes later in the book when, we will admit, we were pretty sick of what we were reading and were maybe not so careful to pick up every disgusting thing Hubbard was foisting on his readers. So, we regret to say, we failed to highlight the following passage, which occurs on page 336 of our 1950 first edition hardback of the book, in the chapter “Mechanisms and Aspects of Therapy”…

There are two axioms about mind function with which the auditor should be familiar…The first axiom is of interest to the auditor in his work because with it he can clearly establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction. The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not computing; she is reacting to an engram since at seven she should see nothing wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one. There must have been an earlier experience, possibly prenatal, which made men or kissing very bad.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Dianetics336a.jpg
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
WoW....I certainly missed that....and don't recall reading it.
The above quotation and screenshot are from the first edition. Perhaps the quoted text was edited out of subsequent editions when, you know, someone other than Hubbard had actually read the book before publication?
 

Bost_Bobby

Patron with Honors
I definitely remember reading that and thinking he was not being literal but was just trying to make a point. At least that's what I hoped. Thinking about it now he could have used a thousand other scenarios to make the same point.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
I definitely remember reading that and thinking he was not being literal but was just trying to make a point. At least that's what I hoped. Thinking about it now he could have used a thousand other scenarios to make the same point.
How could one, anyone, make that particular point without being literal?

If, as Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard says, the entire point is to "clearly establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction," how can one utilize Hubbard's example of a seven-year-old girl being passionately kissed unless one assumes and believes Hubbard is being literal?

Did people think this was a metaphor? Hubbard is using a metaphor to "establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction?" What?
 
Last edited:

Bost_Bobby

Patron with Honors
The above quotation and screenshot are from the first edition. Perhaps the quoted text was edited out of subsequent editions when, you know, someone other than Hubbard had actually read the book before publication?
There's no doubt in my mind that I read that passage. I just looked through my two hard covers and could not find it. The first Dianetics book I had was a hand-me-down of a very old paperback edition. I'm guessing it was in that.
 

Bost_Bobby

Patron with Honors
How could one, anyone, make that particular point without being literal?

If, as Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard says, the entire point is to "clearly establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction," how can one utilize Hubbard's example of a seven-year-old girl being passionately kissed unless one assumes and believes Hubbard is being literal?

Did this people think this was a metaphor? Hubbard is using a metaphor to "establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction?" What?

You are absolutely right of course. But we all made a lot of excuses for him especially early on. At least I did.
 

xwc

Patron with Honors
It was probably an error by the transcriptionist. We all know how much they screwed ron's writings up. :duh:
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard says a seven-year-old girl should see nothing wrong with being passionately kissed.

From Tony Ortega.

http://tonyortega.org/2016/05/09/66...stantiated-from-pulp-writer-to-god-among-men/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Anyway, on this anniversary, we wanted to admit to having let you all down. During our blog series on Dianetics, we managed to pull out a lot of amazing material with Vance, but somehow, we glossed over one passage that really does deserve to get some attention. It comes later in the book when, we will admit, we were pretty sick of what we were reading and were maybe not so careful to pick up every disgusting thing Hubbard was foisting on his readers. So, we regret to say, we failed to highlight the following passage, which occurs on page 336 of our 1950 first edition hardback of the book, in the chapter “Mechanisms and Aspects of Therapy”…

There are two axioms about mind function with which the auditor should be familiar…The first axiom is of interest to the auditor in his work because with it he can clearly establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction. The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not computing; she is reacting to an engram since at seven she should see nothing wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one. There must have been an earlier experience, possibly prenatal, which made men or kissing very bad.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Dianetics336a.jpg


Such a belief is consistent with the belief that there is nothing wrong with passionately kissing a seven-year-old girl, and she would suffer no harm as a result, unless "she [was] reacting to an engram."

Think about that.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
How could one, anyone, make that particular point without being literal?

If, as Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard says, the entire point is to "clearly establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction," how can one utilize Hubbard's example of a seven-year-old girl being passionately kissed unless one assumes and believes Hubbard is being literal?

Did this people think this was a metaphor? Hubbard is using a metaphor to "establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction?" What?



It could be anything but not what he wrote neither meant

it is called: cognitive dissonance
a particular interesting compulsive computing we (exes) know first hand and from observation here. :confused2:

Thank you for having posted this stuff...very telling again about how he was knowledgeable about kid (girls) and he considered them....
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Realistically what was meant is that many of us have had childhood experiences that we didn't understand the context of until we were adults.

I remember being at a sibling's residence as a kid when they were in college. My favorite in-law took me and another family member on a walk around campus. It was FOREVER!! It took waaaaaaaaaay too long and we were definitely petered out when we got back.

Many years later the sibling told me that they were smoking pot. The sibling never knew what the in-law had done and that was that the in-law had taken us out and away from that setting to shield us from that exposure.

Then it all clicked and made sense.

Although that was a positive understanding I've had others that were negative.

This passage is saying that a kid wouldn't have any prior experience to gauge an innocent kiss to a lascivious sexual one...being too young to understand.

Remember the old SNL skits where Gilda Radner and Jane Newman play the little girls and the uncle comes over to babysit and has them jump on the bed and he snaps polaroids of them when their skirts fly up?

The kids were just having fun and the joke was that the pervert was taking advantage of the "play". Think Hugh Hef and his trampolines and Bunnies.

I'm not defending Hubbard or Dianetics.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Realistically what was meant is that many of us have had childhood experiences that we didn't understand the context of until we were adults.

I remember being at a sibling's residence as a kid when they were in college. My favorite in-law took me and another family member on a walk around campus. It was FOREVER!! It took waaaaaaaaaay too long and we were definitely petered out when we got back.

Many years later the sibling told me that they were smoking pot. The sibling never knew what the in-law had done and that was that the in-law had taken us out and away from that setting to shield us from that exposure.

Then it all clicked and made sense.

Although that was a positive understanding I've had others that were negative.

This passage is saying that a kid wouldn't have any prior experience to gauge an innocent kiss to a lascivious sexual one...being too young to understand.

Remember the old SNL skits where Gilda Radner and Jane Newman play the little girls and the uncle comes over to babysit and has them jump on the bed and he snaps polaroids of them when their skirts fly up?

The kids were just having fun and the joke was that the pervert was taking advantage of the "play". Think Hugh Hef and his trampolines and Bunnies.

I'm not defending Hubbard or Dianetics.
So you agree with Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard that a "seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not computing" -- i.e., is not having a "a rational reaction?" Not even when the kiss is "a passionate one?"
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...
Such a belief is consistent with the belief that there is nothing wrong with passionately kissing a seven-year-old girl, and she would suffer no harm as a result, unless "she [was] reacting to an engram."

Think about that.


Hideous stuff!

Can't believe I never saw that--but, maybe that passage was only in the 1950 edition, long before I ever read DMSMP (Dianetics, the Modern Science of "Mental" Pedophilia).

Ideal Daydream: I just thought of a live TV show where Tom Cruise is being interviewed. Suddenly he stops his incessant creepy cackling when the show's host says:

HOST
So Tom, I was very curious after I saw one of your interviews.
You suggested to everyone to buy Dianetics, read it and decide
for themselves. Well, I liked your suggestion so I went out and
actually bought my very own copy of Dianetics!

CRUISE
Well, that's wonderful!

HOST
And I read it too, cover to cover!

CRUISE
Very well done!

HOST
And I was startled to learn some new things
from Mr. Hubbard. Things I never thought
of until he brought it to my attention.

CRUISE
Outstanding!

HOST
Well, if you don't mind, I'd love to actually read
a passage from Dianetics for our millions of viewers
at home. Rather than listening to critics, they can hear
the words of L. Ron Hubbard directly and decide for themselves!

CRUISE
Fantastic!

HOST
And I quote: "The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a
man kisses her is not computing; she is reacting to an engram
since at seven she should see nothing wrong in a kiss, not even
a passionate one. There must have been an earlier experience,
possibly prenatal, which made men or kissing very bad."


[AUDIENCE GROANS WITH REVULSION]


CRUISE
Now wait a gosh darn minute people!
Ron is simply saying that a 7 year old girl
shouldn't mind a grown man french kissing her
unless she has previous "incident" with charge.
[AUDIENCE OPENLY JEERS]
People! You're being glib people!
You need to duplicate Ron's tech, people!

[AUDIENCE BEGINS BOOING & LEAVING]
Some people, well if they don't like Scientology,
well then fuck you! Really, FUCK YOU!
[SUP]*[/SUP]





[SUP]*[/SUP] Actual verbatim quote of Tom Cruise while being interviewed for ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE: ("Some people, well, if they don't like Scientology, well, then, fuck you.' He rises from the table. 'Really.' He points an angry finger at the imaginary enemy. 'Fuck you.' His face reddens.")
 
Last edited:

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not computing; she is reacting to an engram since at seven she should see nothing wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one. There must have been an earlier experience, possibly prenatal, which made men or kissing very bad.

Hello,

Monica Blowdown here,

I am Billy's cousin - an old timer and professional dianetics auditor.
Ron meant what he said.

As a matter of fact, my beautiful daughter - 8 years old, came back from school the other day, very disturbed, afraid and sort of shameful.

''What's going on honey'' - I asked

''Mummy, she said, the bus driver wait that I was alone with him in the bus and when I was about to get out,
he said,," come here a second''
''so I came close to him and he gave me a kiss.
Mum, It was disgusting...he put is tongue in my mouth and made noise...I did not know what to do ...I am scared !'

Okay I said..I got it! I acknowledge all your feelings honey.




My husband wanted to get the guy and punch him.

''No, I said, don't say a word...she is restimulating one of the time you penetrated me while I was pregnant of her...It made her having a compulsive disgust about men. Her reaction is just a restim.'

So I got my kid in session..and we contacted the earlier similar , flattened it and that was it...
She was VGI's , up-tone and completely destimulated.:yes:

She regained total control of her life and tomorrow , will take the bus as usual without any fear of the bus driver. She took responsibility and will not pull-in such event anymore. happydance:

Being a $cientologist family is a wonderful thing!
We know we are in TOTAL control and can handle any situation because we have the tek!

ML

Monica
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Per LRH, wouldn't this little girl have been kissed countless times over trillions of years?

And because of those previous experiences, wouldn't she KNOW what types of kisses are appropriate, and which are not?

Or maybe this girl's parents (this life) taught her what is not appropriate? Why does a negative reaction on her part have to be due to an engram? WTF?

Perhaps someone can do a channelling session so we can ask him? :coolwink:

(if I wasn't really tired I'd do one myself right now) ;)
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
AS a matter of fact something similar happened to me when I was about 9.

I came back home terrified and told my big brother while I didn't tell my parents. I was scared they would punished me.

My brother who was 13 got his friend and they found the guy ( about 20 years old pig) and punched him - he stopped to punch him when he was crying.
He never tried that again on me..at least!

It was good to live in a wog pts middle class family as we had simple effective wog teck to handle such situation. :coolwink:

(we didnt have to contact any of Daddy's sperm neither my mum ovaries...)
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased
So you agree with Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard that a "seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not computing" -- i.e., is not having a "a rational reaction?" Not even when the kiss is "a passionate one?"

Yeah. That's exactly what I wrote. You nailed it...spot on.
 

Gib

Crusader
Per LRH, wouldn't this little girl have been kissed countless times over trillions of years?

And because of those previous experiences, wouldn't she KNOW what types of kisses are appropriate, and which are not?


Or maybe this girl's parents (this life) taught her what is not appropriate? Why does a negative reaction on her part have to be due to an engram? WTF?

Perhaps someone can do a channelling session so we can ask him? :coolwink:

(if I wasn't really tired I'd do one myself right now) ;)

no, because of the viewpoint of somebody first reading this book, would not know about scientology and hubbards views after the first book, until they read more, and then they slowly get persuaded. Some stay, the elite, some leave, the PTS/SP's. LOL
 

Gib

Crusader
Per LRH, wouldn't this little girl have been kissed countless times over trillions of years?

And because of those previous experiences, wouldn't she KNOW what types of kisses are appropriate, and which are not?

Or maybe this girl's parents (this life) taught her what is not appropriate? Why does a negative reaction on her part have to be due to an engram? WTF?


Perhaps someone can do a channelling session so we can ask him? :coolwink:

(if I wasn't really tired I'd do one myself right now) ;)

because that was hubbards use of logic to explain the reactive mind and engrams and get us to believe, he used the emotions, or pathos. (which is before Science of Survival on the emotional tone scale, pathos, emotions, all made up by Hubbard in SOS to seem logical, but is actually a means of persuasion per rhetoric)

The logic part is from Korzybski, in the first axiom of dianetics: The Mind perceives, poses, and resolves problems relating to survival. Makes sense, sure does,

hook, line and sinker by Hubbard to get us, bait and switch.

Dianetics336a.jpg
 
Top