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

[phenomanon]

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:

*

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



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

What does the word "passionately" mean to you?

 

[phenomanon]

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 !

I have pulled witholds on at least 8 child abusers in cos. What they usually say is that the children love to receive affection. That there is nothing wrong with teaching a child to love. etc etc RETCH!
What you do as a cherch Auditor is report these freaks to "Ethics", and circle it in Red on the front cover report
One then believes that they are handled by Internal Justice. Retch!

 

[Dave B.]

Child abuse. $cientology's dirty little secret. One of them, among many.

 

[Enthetan]

I have pulled witholds on at least 8 child abusers in cos. What they usually say is that the children love to receive affection. That there is nothing wrong with teaching a child to love. etc etc RETCH!
What you do as a cherch Auditor is report these freaks to "Ethics", and circle it in Red on the front cover report
One then believes that they are handled by Internal Justice. Retch!

I knew of an abuse case involving the nine year old daughter of a staff member by another staff member. The abusing staff member was quietly offloaded, but no further action was taken, as far as I know.

Involving the police and making a criminal complaint would be out-PR for the Church, "the most ethical group on the planet", you see...

 

[The_Fixer]

What does the word "passionately" mean to you?

1. Definitely the sexual aspect as others are seeing it as here,

2. Showing or expressing a strong emotion. Again, this could be of a sexual nature and not as well.

I would hug and kiss my kids passionately often to express my fondness for them, but there is no sexual motivation in that whatsoever, just simple affection.

When I read that passage, it could have suggested a sexual thing, or it could have just said what I said above. The text did not specifically point one way or the other, so I just didn't take it in because it went no further with it. Which is what I meant by context.

I also mentioned the time the book was written. As an example, "A gay frolic in the park" in 1950 has a very different meaning in 1980.

But if this book was read by so many back in the 50s and I'm betting a lot of highly qualified folks read it too, it makes me wonder why no one had anything to say about that statement if it was so inappropriate?

Having said all that, it is quite possible it was written with intent and says exactly what others seem to think it is too.

It's just that I didn't quite see it that way right then, is all and I'm not saying they are wrong, just expressing a different viewpoint.

 

[Enthetan]

Child abuse. $cientology's dirty little secret. One of them, among many.

One very widespread form of abuse, which I think even more serious than sexual abuse, is the neglect of kids education, in favor of putting them on staff instead of in school. That abuse permanently damaged their future.

A friend on staff noted that another staff member's daughter was effectively illiterate. Her mom's reply? "No big deal, she's just going to go into the Sea Org anyway".

 

[Chloe]

[SNIP]
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.
(....)

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.
(...)

I'm not defending Hubbard or Dianetics.

Thanks for your post Guanoloco, an interesting different point of view! I quickly read the posts, so I might missed something similar like this:

I do however hope that parents educat their childeren very wrong about what is normal and not and that they are in control of their bodies? And I think sometimes you have a 'natural' feeling that something isn't right?

---
I remember when reading this passage I didn't fully comprehend it the first time. I had read already a lot of pages and was not really focused anymore. It was when I was summarising it to remember that I read the passage again and thought it was strange..

 

[Leland]

That's just silly.... (post above)

Young boys and girls are afraid of getting "cooties".....

Young children have to be told by their parents to let Grandma or Grandpa....kiss them....and that is just a peck....

Young children shrink away from being kissed....and think its yukky....

Children have lots of built in defense mechanisms.....

 

[AngeloV]

The statement he made shows the depravity of his thinking. I wonder if he tried to passionately kiss Diana or his other daughter and they shrank away from him. I wonder if that prompted him to write what he did.

Perhaps his daughter cringed because of his rotten teeth and foul smelling breath. But he could never be wrong and so attributed her reaction to some 'engram' she had.

What a complete a-hole he was.

 

[Little David]

Hubbard wrote that particular BS before his fourth through seventh children with his third wife were born. His third child, Alexis with his second wife Sara might have been born shortly before or after he wrote it. LRH, the child behavior expert abandoned and or disowned all seven of his children in my opinion.

 

[Gizmo]

I have pulled witholds on at least 8 child abusers in cos. What they usually say is that the children love to receive affection. That there is nothing wrong with teaching a child to love. etc etc RETCH!
What you do as a cherch Auditor is report these freaks to "Ethics", and circle it in Red on the front cover report
One then believes that they are handled by Internal Justice. Retch!

Yep. An absolute fact that the most that happens is that child sexual abuse MIGHT get reported to ethics.

Yet there is no instance where, as the LAW requires, child sexual molestation is EVER reported to the proper authorities.

Yes, sometimes a staff member "might" be offloaded BUT frequently NOTHING happens to the offender. Nothing at all.

The group considers their reputation more important than the welfare of any individual.

It'd " look bad " & be " out PR" if the law was followed.


And, yes, as auditor I damn well know exactly when Phenomanon means in her post. It is heart breaking & gut wrenching to see sexual child abuse swept under the rub & the abuser still be allowed access to more children.

I'd bet my life the same thing continues today in that group. How can I say that ? Because they still have yet to turn even one molester over to the police as required by law. Name one, please !

 

[CommunicatorIC]

1. Definitely the sexual aspect as others are seeing it as here,

2. Showing or expressing a strong emotion. Again, this could be of a sexual nature and not as well.

I would hug and kiss my kids passionately often to express my fondness for them, but there is no sexual motivation in that whatsoever, just simple affection.

When I read that passage, it could have suggested a sexual thing, or it could have just said what I said above. The text did not specifically point one way or the other, so I just didn't take it in because it went no further with it. Which is what I meant by context.

I disagree.

Again, for context, 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 * * * * *

The construction "not even" suggests, and indeed implies, a sexual interpretation.

The construction "not even" would not have been used to describe your innocent practice of hugging and kissing your kids passionately to express your fondness for them.

Further, in this later scenario your innocent practice of hugging and kissing your kids passionately to express your fondness for them, not even Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard would find it necessary to teach that your child might be, "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."

 

[lotus]

Emphasis mine

Quote Originally Posted by The_Fixer

I would hug and kiss my kids passionately often to express my fondness for them, but there is no sexual motivation in that whatsoever, just simple affection.

Well,

I believe you do, as most people including men would do with their kids they love..
but I doubt LRH would even know this type of deep love and affection toward one's own kids..his were too used as slaves... (no true love there..)

Also he was not talking of a kid passionately kissed bu his\her father...but by a man...and why a 7 years old girl would have been ''reacting'' to a ''passionate'' innofensive hug and kiss by dad ????

I'd say he was definitely talking about the (possible) reaction, of a small girl being kiss (like in a french kiss) by a man, not being a legitimate reaction, but commanded by an oldah similah....which demonstrate here, again, a total lack of understanding of kids feelings, emotions, when used as a mean of....Go-ahead like endorsement toward men using kids though.... since there is no wrong there...(big thetan in small bodies)..:confused2: