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

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
It's funny you wrote that thoughtful post to Phenom,

I was going to post, that ( even though these last posts of Phenom , were quite moving,) I like how phenon shoot the stuff; straight - as it was.

We are priviledge to have you, old timer, among us. Some of the discussions I enjoy the most (are very precious) concerning how it really was then..are when You face and Phenom encounter on a thread. :coolwink:

I take some cookies , make a tea...and read...
The only deception I have..is there aren't enough of those .

You have both walked a long walk and have lived so many lives...(this lifetime on this planet :))

Thank you for sharing
Love to you both!:hattip:

(babygirl Lotus) :)
 
Last edited:

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Over the years the more I've found out about Dr. Hubbard the more it fits his nature that he was a child molester.
 

Moosejewels

Patron Meritorious
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.

Don't want to think about it ! But I just did, right :duh:
 

phenomanon

Canyon
As one tough mutha to anotha...Man, do I ever Grok you! :lol:

What has endeared me to you over the years on this Board is that we "chewed some of the same dirt" and your straight shooting, unvarnished and firsthand perspective re: the real El Ron, whom we both knew and interacted with. :yes:

Your "take no prisoners" insight and unique perspective re: Hisself and the "Original Days" foot so well with my personal experience and memories from the "Old Days", around a decade, more or less, later. :coolwink:

Your Stuff on ESMB helped me, immeasurably, to realize that what I saw go down was how "It" and "IT" was from the get-go. :ohmy:

So glad you've been here with all of Us and still hangin' around these parts, Darlin'. :thumbsup:

Face:)

I sure needed that validation, Face. I'm having a bit of a bad hair day, and this message cheered me up considerably.
I think about my trip thru scn, and often wonder what my life would have been like had I found a different rainbow to follow., a different dream, a different life.
They say that when you are dying, your whole life passes before your eyes. Mine has been scrolling thru my mind quite steadily of late. These are my fooking pictures, they belong to me, and it has nothing to do with volcanos.
I must say that scn wasn't the only stupid game I played. There were others.:coolwink:
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
I sure needed that validation, Face. I'm having a bit of a bad hair day, and this message cheered me up considerably.
I think about my trip thru scn, and often wonder what my life would have been like had I found a different rainbow to follow., a different dream, a different life.
They say that when you are dying, your whole life passes before your eyes. Mine has been scrolling thru my mind quite steadily of late. These are my fooking pictures, they belong to me, and it has nothing to do with volcanos.
I must say that scn wasn't the only stupid game I played. There were others.:coolwink:

" There were others "
Yeah, well, I've gotten older & as I look back at some of the stupid things I did before, during, after, & still I shudder, but, in all honesty, not nearly like the really really stupid shit I did here there & yonder - and that still haunts me today.

Ah, had I know that one day I'd cringe at the indelible memories I gave myself - would I have behaved better ?

Probably not. Damn it !

However, when I see you have posted - I go straight to it & read.

You are one of the few people I so wish I'd gotten to know along the way.

I like you a whole lot !

I suspect we'd have enjoyed a cup of coffee, or, a glass of wine.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...
--snipped--

...for many of us, if we didn't leave carrying a PTSD, we left with a trauma that takes years. . .


Somehow, I was one of the fortunate ones that had no traces whatsoever of PTSD or any psychological "hangover" from Scientology that affects my behavior even slightly!

Occasionally, I do find that I have some productive habits and skills that I gained from Scientology which are still helpful in normal, everyday situations. Things such as:

* Doing musters first thing in the morning and after lunch and dinner, even though I live alone. Naturally, I have to call my own name and also reply "HERE!" I would offer in support of this good habit the simple fact that in the decades since i left Scientology, I have never once had to call a blow drill on myself.

* Carrying a clipboard everywhere I go that holds various graphs, battle plans and inspirational LRH quotes about how everyone on the planet is doomed to an eternal "agonized future" of suffering, unless they do exactly what he says. On the back of my clipboard I always have a picture of a gorilla to remind me of the Gorilla Goal Implants from 319 trillion years ago that Ron scientifically determined can negatively affect a being's postulates in present time. This keeps me at gentle cause over gorillas, a species I have successfully disconnected from on this planet.

* Being vigilant and super-aware of my environment at all times (per LRH's "The price of freedom" policy)--such as when I am going to work each day on public transportation. For example, on the bus I am constantly doing the obnosis drill on other passengers. This way I can determine whether their chronic tone level is below 2.0 and thus they are putting CI on my lines, in which case I face rip them.​

We shall not speculate here how I was able to rise above PTSD. Perhaps I had a huge theta endowment or whatever, but for those of you smaller beings who do suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, my heart goes out to you--and you should really take a look at Ron's policy on "The Supreme Test" so that you can start making it go right, instead of dramatizing so much and being a buzz kill to other uptone peoples' wins.
 
Last edited:

The_Fixer

Class Clown
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?

I may have read this when I first read Dianetics at the time. I really don't remember.
But I also noticed it was way into Book 3, where I would have taken in quite a degree of material before I saw it. Maybe whilst I was reading I wasn't looking for anything sinister or having underlying tones in his writings. Now I see it differently, as a person with any sense writing this [STRIKE]book[/STRIKE] piece of shit should have used a different analogy. IIRC, most of what Hubbard wrote seemed to have its basis in sex and sexually dysfunctional behavior. Or what was considered to be so at that point in time.

I would have thought at the time it was just making a point and not necessarily being literal. I don't know. But I may also have had some kind of cognitive dissonance by that point as well, because I was already attending the org and doing my Comm. course at the time.

Maybe many of us never notice these things until after we disconnect from the cult and see things a little differently?

I would never have found it, because I'm not terribly interested in re-reading all that garbage again. I really don't recall nearly all of Dianetics anymore. And it doesn't matter one whit to me either.
 

This is NOT OK !!!!

Gold Meritorious Patron
...


* Doing musters first thing in the morning and after lunch and dinner, even though I live alone. Naturally, I have to call my own name and also reply "HERE!" I would offer in support of this good habit the simple fact that in the decades since i left Scientology, I have never once had to call a blow drill on myself.


That should be "HERE, SIR!" buster!

While you're at it, do my laundry.

P.S. Rinse my shirts SEVEN times. I don't want to get thrown into a Pain, Sex implant every time I dress, you cocksucker!​
 

The_Fixer

Class Clown
I might also add to my previous comment that the way pedophile behavior is regarded today was significantly different back in the time this book was written.

Many people simply may not have seen anything wrong with that comment back then, considering it as an analogy without any inappropriate intent.

Not so these days.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Many people simply may not have seen anything wrong with that comment back then,
Dear God I hope not. I really hope that is not true.
considering it as an analogy
I really don't understand this "analogy" point. Analogy to what?

Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said what he said.

To recall, this is what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said:

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

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 QUOTATION * * * * *

THIS is what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said. NOT something else.

According to Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard, if a man kisses a seven-year-old passionately -- to be blunt and actually confront the reality of what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said, if during that process the man sticks his tongue in her mouth -- and she has a negative reaction ("shudders"), it is only because "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."
without any inappropriate intent.
I am not, for the purpose of this particular comment, concerned about Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard's intent. I do not give a shit. What he said, what he specifically said, is correct, or it is incorrect.

There are potential consequences -- potential very serious consequences -- if what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said is incorrect but is nonetheless believed by Scientologists or others.

Particularly if they act on such belief.

Finally, I'm mystified by people (not necessarily you, The Fixer) who appear to be arguing that Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard didn't really mean precisely what he said. Such an argument is particularly odd concerning a book that is prefaced with an admonition warning to reader to look up in a dictionary any word or symbol the reader may not understand. Such an argument is galling concerning a religion that not only teachers, but enforces, word clearing. In addition, has anyone heard of a policy called KSW? If so, does the KSW policy really mean that one is not supposed to take Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard literally?

EDITED TO ADD:

Even now still leaving aside the issue of Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard's intent, I will add this. What Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard described is a criminally illegal form of sexual assault on a minor. What Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said about the reactions of the victim has the effect of blaming the victim, and exonerating and immunizing the perpetrator.
 

anonomog

Gold Meritorious Patron
For some cultures, religions and at various times in history, kissing a 7 year old passionately may not have been frowned on, or seen as immoral. However, in Hubbard's time and in his US Western culture it was very much frowned on, it was taboo. This is not something he would do in front of his mother or his (normal-non-weirdo-moon child-creating-cult follower)peers. While he grew up in a time different to now, it wasn't that different.


Only the mind of a paedophile would expect a 7 year old girl to enjoy a passionate kiss or there is something wrong with her. Only a paedophile would think that the child needs to be fixed.
 

The_Fixer

Class Clown
Dear God I hope not. I really hope that is not true.I really don't understand this "analogy" point. Analogy to what?

Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said what he said.

To recall, this is what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said:

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

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 QUOTATION * * * * *

THIS is what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said. NOT something else.

According to Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard, if a man kisses a seven-year-old passionately -- to be blunt and actually confront the reality of what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said, if during that process the man sticks his tongue in her mouth -- and she has a negative reaction ("shudders"), it is only because "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."I am not, for the purpose of this particular comment, concerned about Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard's intent. I do not give a shit. What he said, what he specifically said, is correct, or it is incorrect.

There are potential consequences -- potential very serious consequences -- if what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said is incorrect but is nonetheless believed by Scientologists or others.

Particularly if they act on such belief.

Finally, I'm mystified by people (not necessarily you, The Fixer) who appear to be arguing that Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard didn't really mean precisely what he said. Such an argument is particularly odd concerning a book that is prefaced with an admonition warning to reader to look up in a dictionary any word or symbol the reader may not understand. Such an argument is galling concerning a religion that not only teachers, but enforces, word clearing. In addition, has anyone heard of a policy called KSW? If so, does the KSW policy really mean that one is not supposed to take Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard literally?

EDITED TO ADD:

Even now still leaving aside the issue of Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard's intent, I will add this. What Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard described is a criminally illegal form of sexual assault on a minor. What Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said about the reactions of the victim has the effect of blaming the victim, and exonerating and immunizing the perpetrator.

Are you reading that page in its entirety, or just picking out a point?
To my mind, reading that excerpt there was for the most part nothing particularly wrong with it - except for one point. The passionate kiss part was suspect.

But there is nothing wrong for a man to give a 7 year old girl a kiss - to say hello or goodbye, or I love you in a way that expresses simple appropriate affection for her, or a response to her. Definitely not passionately though. For the most part I only see that in the article. I think that was the point Hubbard was trying to make, albeit badly.

I think the book was released in the 50s and it hardly fluttered an eyelid back then.

But if it was released today, with so many people menacingly waving about the pedophile branding iron, he would having been branded, lynched and probably put on the sex offenders register without trial. Then the book would have been banned.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for the old fool, nor do I agree with him either. But I do find the reaction here bordering on a little strong is all. It is hard reading pieces from other time periods without judging them by today's standards.

I guess we also have to remember that back then girls were regarded as inferior. Even rape victims were considered "sport" by the lawyers of the time and humiliated them as much as possible. Women were generally to blame for the assault in the eyes of society and all onus of proof was pushed onto her. Unless the perpetrator was one of those evil coloured folks, then that was different.

Thankfully, we have moved on from those attitudes, but these days we really have to be careful what we write or say unless Homeland Security or the PC police decide to visit us.

Whilst doing family history research, I often come across completely tragic stories and barbaric treatment of the authorities (the Inquisition springs to mind, or hanging a 6 year old child for stealing a loaf of bread), but that was the way people thought back then. Our thinking today would be completely alien to them.

So, he said this:

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

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 QUOTATION * * * *
*

Did he actually say this, or is it someone's interpretation of the above?

COLOR=#ff0000]THIS[/COLOR] is what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said. NOT something else.

According to Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard, if a man kisses a seven-year-old passionately -- to be blunt and actually confront the reality of what Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said, if during that process the man sticks his tongue in her mouth -- and she has a negative reaction ("shudders"), it is only because "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."I am not, for the purpose of this particular comment, concerned about Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard's intent. I do not give a shit. What he said, what he specifically said, is correct, or it is incorrect.

Because I saw nothing about a tongue being mentioned in that excerpt.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Are you reading that page in its entirety, or just picking out a point?
I am focusing on a particular point. So what? I'm being unfair to Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard? The disgusting vileness of the quoted passage is somehow diminished if it is read in context? Really?

Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard teaches that a seven-year-old girl will not be bothered or disturbed ("shudder") by being kissed "passionately" unless "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."

I believe that statement is not only empirically wrong, but also dangerous because implies such conduct is harmless, and thus defends, immunizes, and exonerates the perpetrator.

Other, it appears, disagree with my assessment.

Quite frankly, given what that particular "point" demonstrates about Hubbard -- and those who believe his statement is indeed correct -- I don't give a fuck about the "page in its entirety." Anyone who would not only say something like that about a seven-year-old girl, but also believes such a statement would be a useful example in a book on therapy, is a vile and disgusting piece of shit. Why the fuck would any decent human being who read and understood that sentence (i.e.., didn't skip over it being tired late in the book, wasn't suffering cognitive dissonance, wasn't a brain-washed drone) accept advice from the author is completely beyond my understanding.

Because I saw nothing about a tongue being mentioned in that excerpt.
We may have differing definitions of the meaning of "kissing passionately". My understanding is that kissing a female "passionately" involves the tongue. My understanding is that if the kiss does not involve the tongue, it is not "passionate." I could be wrong on that point. (It could also reflect how I kiss.) If I am wrong on that particular understanding, it does not detract from my larger point.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
For some cultures, religions and at various times in history, kissing a 7 year old passionately may not have been frowned on, or seen as immoral. However, in Hubbard's time and in his US Western culture it was very much frowned on, it was taboo. This is not something he would do in front of his mother or his (normal-non-weirdo-moon child-creating-cult follower)peers. While he grew up in a time different to now, it wasn't that different.


Only the mind of a paedophile would expect a 7 year old girl to enjoy a passionate kiss or there is something wrong with her. Only a paedophile would think that the child needs to be fixed.

f011.jpg
Other cultures have different attitudes, yes.

For American culture, particularly in the 1950's and 1960's, passionately kissing an American father's 7 year old child WOULD have gotten a man a trip to the hospital. Or perhaps the morgue.
 
Last edited:

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
*emphasis mine*

Helluvahoax

* Doing musters first thing in the morning and after lunch and dinner, even though I live alone. Naturally, I have to call my own name and also reply "HERE!" I would offer in support of this good habit the simple fact that in the decades since i left Scientology, I have never once had to call a blow drill on myself.



That should be "HERE, SIR!" buster!

While you're at it, do my laundry.

P.S. Rinse my shirts SEVEN times. I don't want to get thrown into a Pain, Sex implant every time I dress, you cocksucker!​



*clearing my throat*



Order:
Clay demo muster

till you correctly answer your senior, which is :" Hi Sir''!

You are both given an ethics chit for squirreling the tech and not applying KSW
and are both forbidden Hollywood boulevard a whole week!

this is true
ML
Lotus​
 
Last edited:

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Well, as most of ( who are not blind ) have seen over & over in the " church of scientology " that the sexual abuse of children is regularly covered up & has been covered up from the gitgo.

A child being sexually abused in that group & the abuser being protected is NOT at all unusual. Seems shrugged off with the child " pulled it in " or is " millons or trillons of years old anyway ".

And any of you have been anywhere near sexual child abuse in the cos know damn well that IS the truth.

So, that Doctor Hubbard would think something is wrong with a seven year old that doesn't like a passionate kiss from an adult is fucking par for the course ! And taking a clue from him it damn well has continued right through until today.

Should the cover up of sexual molestation of a child ( which is ILLEGAL TO NOT REPORT TO POLICE ! ) at some point be made public & the depth of it & the length of it - that would so turn the public against them.

The Catholic Church was minor league compared to the cos & they Catholic Church paid out untold millions & millions of dollars & seriously damaged their attendance & public trust.

But, hey, some fucking idiots are going to post defense of Doctor Hubbard & violate every policy ( like KSW ) & say he didn't mean what he said & put some innocent spin on that child molestor.

Even back in 1950 the old bastard was a nasty piece of work.

Damn those defenders of that depraved bastard must be proud of themselves !
 
Last edited:

phenomanon

Canyon
" There were others "
Yeah, well, I've gotten older & as I look back at some of the stupid things I did before, during, after, & still I shudder, but, in all honesty, not nearly like the really really stupid shit I did here there & yonder - and that still haunts me today.

Ah, had I know that one day I'd cringe at the indelible memories I gave myself - would I have behaved better ?

Probably not. Damn it !

However, when I see you have posted - I go straight to it & read.

You are one of the few people I so wish I'd gotten to know along the way.

I like you a whole lot !

I suspect we'd have enjoyed a cup of coffee, or, a glass of wine.


We can still do it! It's not too late. PM me where you are. I am on Washington State's Olympic Peninsula. I am leaving on a long car trip later this week, maybe you are on my route?
 

phenomanon

Canyon
...



Somehow, I was one of the fortunate ones that had no traces whatsoever of PTSD or any psychological "hangover" from Scientology that affects my behavior even slightly!

Occasionally, I do find that I have some productive habits and skills that I gained from Scientology which are still helpful in normal, everyday situations. Things such as:
* Doing musters first thing in the morning and after lunch and dinner, even though I live alone. Naturally, I have to call my own name and also reply "HERE!" I would offer in support of this good habit the simple fact that in the decades since i left Scientology, I have never once had to call a blow drill on myself.

* Carrying a clipboard everywhere I go that holds various graphs, battle plans and inspirational LRH quotes about how everyone on the planet is doomed to an eternal "agonized future" of suffering, unless they do exactly what he says. On the back of my clipboard I always have a picture of a gorilla to remind me of the Gorilla Goal Implants from 319 trillion years ago that Ron scientifically determined can negatively affect a being's postulates in present time. This keeps me at gentle cause over gorillas, a species I have successfully disconnected from on this planet.

* Being vigilant and super-aware of my environment at all times (per LRH's "The price of freedom" policy)--such as when I am going to work each day on public transportation. For example, on the bus I am constantly doing the obnosis drill on other passengers. This way I can determine whether their chronic tone level is below 2.0 and thus they are putting CI on my lines, in which case I face rip them.​

We shall not speculate here how I was able to rise above PTSD. Perhaps I had a huge theta endowment or whatever, but for those of you smaller beings who do suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, my heart goes out to you--and you should really take a look at Ron's policy on "The Supreme Test" so that you can start making it go right, instead of dramatizing so much and being a buzz kill to other uptone peoples' wins.


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
Top