Well, not really. I get that you concede that children can have these feelings, but also maintain that it’s utterly impossible for them to act on these feelings in anything resembling a wilful, consenting manner.
It’s very convenient for you, I’m sure.
Post #230. It’s not that far upthread.
It is your contention that ten year olds can be capable of sexually manipulating adults purely for their own gratification or other personal gain, and that they can fully understand what they’re doing?
Actually, regarding the $5 blowjob, I’m inclined to doubt any of the girls were making such an offer to the adults, but rather to their male peers.
Assuming, of course, the original story itself is not wildly exagerated, or stems from idle childhood boasting about thing they only said they did.
<kids in the hall>
I’m at it again, Your Honor!
</kith>
No, it’s my contention that it might happen, that there could exist a ten-year old who has discovered this method and has no problem exploiting it, and will not suffer damage because of it. It’s my understanding that your contention is that this is flatly impossible. All I need is one black swan and I was asking, essentally, for your standard of “black”.
Oh, this?
I thought you’d been arguing against the very idea?
See above. And considering nobody was talking about pre-pubescent girls being picked up in bars, apart from being contradictory to your first sentence, it is also irrelevant.
You know this because you’ve met a significant amount of them and you are an expert in behavioural studies and a child psychologist?
ps. I take back the bit about it being contradictory.
It is possible that young children have an idea how to sexually manipulate adults. This raises GIANT red flags at CPS, because typically such children have been, shall we say, tampered with. It happens, but it’s evidence that the child’s already been damaged somehow.
I’m not outraged, I’m hurt.
Don’t get me wrong. Dio’s original claim, that a 15 year old can’t be mistaken for an adult is bullshit.
I think if a child is offering blowjobs for $5, that child has some serious shit going on psychologically. Further marginalizing and stigmatizing that child by calling her manipulative is not helpful. It implies that the child has power that the child does not have.
Some of us might not be so prone to ‘‘hairtrigger outrage’’ if ‘‘s/he manipulated me’’ wasn’t such a favored way of excusing away the sexual abuse of pre-teens and teens. It’s very easy to be diplomatic about this if you haven’t gone through it yourself.
I don’t think Zeriel really intended to do anything other than piss Dio off, but it was a sloppy statement and my feelings about it are not unreasonable.
Man, I hate to defend **Dio **on this, and perhaps I’m not, but here’s how I see his mindset:
Having sex with someone you don’t know very, very well is like walking a tightrope or some other inherently dangerous activity. You may do everything perfectly and take every precaution, but there are always profound and unavoidable risks. Thus, if bad things happen, be they fake IDs or faulty safety nets, you have only yourself to blame for the utterly nasty consequences, and nothing can or should spare you from their full wrath. Am I right on this, Diogenes?
It is flatly impossible. If you disagree, then cite a case.
Well, nothing should spare you from the wrath except a thinking group of your peers who casts judgement upon you who can evaluate the circumstances of the situation and see if you acted in a reasonable manner to avoid criminal behavior. Except for that little thing.
I’ll look for one, but if I managed to cite one from a reputable source, will you modify your “flatly impossible” stance?
The problem is, you can use this train of thought for nearly EVERY bad thing that happens to people. MOST people don’t think “tough shit dude, bad things happen, you knew the risks”.
So, if these other bad things get a conditional pass depending on reasonable circumstances, why not this one?
That’s basically it. I’m saying it’s a calculated risk, and that you have to be accountable for the consequences.
For some reason people seem to think I’m just being puritanical about casual sex, which I don’t care about at all. If you’re on a cruise ship where you know everyone is over 18, knock yourself out. Have all the orgies you want. I do not have any moral objections to casual sex between adults.
Yes, I get that you really, really want to believe that.
It is also *impossible *for a five-year-old to manipulate her grandmother into giving her a cookie by batting her eyelashes and saying “I *WUV *YOU, GWAMMA!” Sure, kids may *want *cookies, but they are completely incapable of acting on those desires in any way. If they did, they would not be inviolate little angels, and Lord knows we can’t entertain *that *thought.
I do. I actually think most other people do too. If you break your legs windsurfing, most people will say you knew the risks.
I’m playing Devil’s advocate here, but in common law there are some situations that are so inherently dangerous that one cannot escape liability for damages no matter what precautions one took. Prime example: I enter a tiger in the St. Patrick’s Day parade. I chain that bugger six ways to Sunday with four trained keepers watching its every move. Against all odds, it gets loose and munches a 3-year-old. I’m on the hook for damages no matter what because of how inherently dangerous it is to wheel a tiger down a busy street. Acting in a reasonable matter doesn’t enter into it.
I agree that having sex with underaged tigers is dangerous for everyone.
Well, now you know how Roy Horn felt.