Dr. Laura/Mary Kay

[cmkeller]

Mr2001:

I believe it’s also best, in the absence of a scientific way to determine whether an individual is ‘mature’, to take the risk of letting an actual immature child enter into a relationship she doesn’t understand, in order to preserve the liberty of others the same age who do understand.

So basically, you believe it’s better to leave the defenseless undefended rather than to deprive those who are not so defenseless of a little fun for a few years.

I have a hard time agreeing with the premise that sex involves deep underlying issues that must be considered before consent can be given that aren’t there with, say, skiing or football.

And I have a hard time seeing why you haven’t grasped that most, if not all, of these other activities do require parental consent before a minor can engage in them. Sex is not singled out in our society. Minors cannot sign any kind of binding legal contract. When risky activity is involved, and the operator of that activity’s facility requires, say, a liability waiver to be signed, minors can’t do that. I’ve never been skiing, but I definitely recall that for a minute-long luge ride at the Calgary Winter Olympics site it was necessary, and I can’t imagine that skiing has less of a requirement. Any organized children’s sports league has permission slips. Society isn’t obsessed with children having sex to the exclusion of other activities.

Dijon Warlock:

I guess we’re going to disagree on this one; because to me, that’s exactly what it does mean. Her options are too limited for her to have free choice (at least in her mind). If that’s not “impaired consent”, then what is it?

It is informed consent. An adult (presumably) understands consequences. An adult can think beyond the moment. If that adult places herself in a situation that will require certain compromises later, it’s (again, presumably) a consequence he or she considered when making the decision, and an informed decision that he or she made.

Relationships don’t justify rape, but the access granted through a relationship can certainly make it easier to inflict.

See above: if both parties, entering into the relationship, were adults, it is presumed that this access was a foreseen consequence.

Yes, rape is a crime. A relationship is not a crime?
What about a pedophilic one?

Rephrase, then: A relationship in which all parties are participating through informed consent.

As to the second statement, it directly pertains to my question: if we consider parental consent a sufficient substitute for the child’s, why are there age limits on sex at all? If they’ve got a note from Mom or Dad, why is there still a law against it? To use your example of my example, with parental consent young children can go into show business. Why can’t they have sex?

We consider parental consent to be a mature opinion that the activity to be engaged in is in the child’s best interests…a decision that the immature child is not in a genuine position to make. And, as I pointed out, since parental consent can lower the required age for marriage, in essence, it can allow the children to have sex. Why are there age limits at all? I couldn’t say for certain, but I’d guess that there is some extreme lower limit beneath which the leaders of society are so certain that it’s not good for a child that it is to be assumed that any parent who would consent to it is not acting in the child’s best interests. It’s only once a certain age has been reached that there’s a certain wiggle room where we don;t yet trust the child’s own judgement, but will not dispute the parent if the parent feels it is in the child’s best interest.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by spooje *
**
Being sexually attracted to a child (read: pre-pubescent) is a sign of illness that should be immediatly addressed.

**

This is exactly the attitude that I was wondering about originally. What exactly is it spooje that qualifies pedophilia as a mental illness? Why attraction to a child but not attraction to members of the same sex, or feet, or whips and chains? I can see where an extreme fixation on age that renders sexual expression impossible under other circumstances might cross the line into the realm of an illness, but other than that, why is any attraction deemed an “illness” needing treatment? I mean, most shoe fetishist’s don’t actually need a pair of leather pumps to get off with, right? That’s just a part of their spectrum that most of us do not share. Isn’t it the same thing with most pedophiles? Sure, there are those unremitting child predators out there that want little kids exclusively and will do everything they can to get hold of them. Cases like Polly Klaas’ (sp?) hover in the back of parents’ minds for a very long time, and the perpetrator in that case is exactly the sort of image that is evoked whenever the word “pedophile” is uttered. But I would submit that since every other attitude/attraction/orientation in the realm of human sexuality is represented by a continuum, that there must be thousands of people out there that are attracted to children to some degree that never act on it. In fact, I am sure that they would hide the fact as much as they are able given society’s views towards pedophiles. So, how “ill” are they?

I am really leaning toward a belief that it is merely a societal standard, a conscious and natural desire to protect vulnerable children from the predatory adults coupled with an unconscious, deeply felt (though in some ways undeserved) belief in childhood’s purity and innocence that drives such a reaction in us.

[Ms2001]

cmkeller:

So basically, you believe it’s better to leave the defenseless undefended rather than to deprive those who are not so defenseless of a little fun for a few years.

Would you do away with the presumption of innocence in court? Or would you rather let killers freely walk the streets just so the few people who are wrongly accused don’t have to be inconvenienced for a few years?

See how fun loaded language is?

And I have a hard time seeing why you haven’t grasped that most, if not all, of these other activities do require parental consent before a minor can engage in them. Sex is not singled out in our society.

It’s not illegal for kids to play football or go skiing without parental consent. The owners of football teams or ski slopes may choose to require parental consent, but there’s no legal requirement, especially if they’re playing football in the neighborhood park.

[Dijon_Warlock]

cmkeller:

And I have a hard time seeing why you haven’t grasped that most, if not all, of these other activities do require parental consent before a minor can engage in them.

I don’t think anyone’s arguing this. The question, rather, is what is there about sex specifically (not exclusively) that calls for such extreme restrictions? Sure, these other things require parental consent in lieu of the child’s, but if that is obtained, they are still allowed to participate. With sex, they are not. I think the question being asked finally succeeded in being received accurately with this:

Why are there age limits at all? I couldn’t say for certain, but I’d guess that there is some extreme lower limit beneath which the leaders of society are so certain that it’s not good for a child that it is to be assumed that any parent who would consent to it is not acting in the child’s best interests.

I’m guessing the same. The question that puzzles me is what prompts this decision by them. In other words, what is so inherently harmful about sex in the first place that we have to ban it outright, rather than simply assure it’s safety?

I’m also interested in your opinion of this, should you wish to take the time to address it:

By me:
This brings to mind something else to ponder (and a good reason why this issue is important): Given that we as humans are a very tactilely oriented species, is depriving children of physical gratification even a good idea? The statistics on how much preemies thrive in pediatric ICUs if they are regularly massaged and stroked (no, I’m not saying they are masturbated, but it would probably be very effective) indicates that pleasurable physical stimulation is very good for us. Should we be pathologising it to the extent that we do? Is depriving children of sex any less abusive than forcing it on them?

Welcome back, Ptahlis: Yes, your question is originally what started the thread (it’s kind of floated off in to justifying the legality rather than the pathology), and I am also at a loss to understand this. I suspect you are close to the answer. What really gets my going even more, though, are statements like jamesglewisf made in an old NAMBLA thread:

One last thing. I think pedophiles ought to be locked up forever, heterosexual or homosexual.

What the hell is this? Even if they haven’t done anything illegal? You don’t have to do anything against the law, because you are against the law? If he had said the following instead: “I think gays ought to be locked up forever, male or female”, everybody on this board would have jumped on him for it. As it was, no-one even blinked. That’s what I don’t get–the tacit approval of intolerance and hatred. He wasn’t referring to criminals, simply people with a different attraction. What justifies that?

[Typo_Negative]

Originally posted by Dijon Warlock *
[BI think pedophiles ought to be locked up forever, heterosexual or homosexual.

What the hell is this? Even if they haven’t done anything illegal? You don’t have to do anything against the law, because you are against the law? If he had said the following instead: “I think gays ought to be locked up forever, male or female”, everybody on this board would have jumped on him for it. As it was, no-one even blinked. That’s what I don’t get–the tacit approval of intolerance and hatred. He wasn’t referring to criminals, simply people with a different attraction. What justifies that? **
[/QUOTE]

“ped·o·phile [pédd fl , pd fl ] (plural ped·o·philes) noun
adult with sexual desire for children: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child”

The reality is that no one is called a pedophile until they either a)have sex, or attempt to have sex with a child, or b) get caught kiddie-porn which is, in and of itself illegal, or c) announces to the world, openly, their desire to have sex with children.

There is a difference between attraction to certain types of people and a sexual desire. One can be attracted to cheerful, happy, strong, competitive, intelligent, or whatever other adjective types without having a sexual desire for them.

I had a look at my roommates college textbook on Human Sexuality (a Cal State Northridge class, if anyone cares).
It stated that “relating to children sexually may represent a way to cope with powerful feelings of inadaquacy that are likely to emerge in sociosexual relationships with other adults”. You’d be hard pressed to find any scholarly or medical textbook that didn’t consider a sexual desire for children pathological. (if you can find one, let me know)

And on the subject of desire, how long can a man have a sexual desire without, in some way, acting on it?

[Dijon_Warlock]

*Originally posted by spooje *
“ped?o?phile [p? fl , pd fl ] (plural ped?o?philes) noun
adult with sexual desire for children: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child”

This would indicate to me that it isn’t necessary to have committed any crimes to qualify as a pedophile, hence my bewilderment.

The reality is that no one is called a pedophile until they either a)have sex, or attempt to have sex with a child, or b) get caught kiddie-porn which is, in and of itself illegal, or c) announces to the world, openly, their desire to have sex with children.

But they would still be one without having done any of those things, and thus would still qualify as someone the poster of that statement believes should be incarcerated.

There is a difference between attraction to certain types of people and a sexual desire. One can be attracted to cheerful, happy, strong, competitive, intelligent, or whatever other adjective types without having a sexual desire for them.

True, but I don’t see how that makes a sexual desire inherently wrong or sick.

I had a look at my roommates college textbook on Human Sexuality (a Cal State Northridge class, if anyone cares).It stated that “relating to children sexually may represent a way to cope with powerful feelings of inadaquacy that are likely to emerge in sociosexual relationships with other adults”. You’d be hard pressed to find any scholarly or medical textbook that didn’t consider a sexual desire for children pathological. (if you can find one, let me know)

I wonder how the textbook quote is any more valid than stating that {warning: pseudoquote} “relating to one’s own gender sexually may represent a way to cope with powerful feelings of inadequacy that are likely to emerge in sociosexual relationships with the opposite gender.” Couldn’t the same argument theoretically be made there (FTR, I’ve no clue if either of those two ideas have any merit, but either way, they’re just theories–so nobody panic)?

On the subject of documenting a non-pathological position on pedophilia, I ran across a study for sale on Amazon not very long ago that purported to have found that adult/minor sexual relationships were for the most part positive experiences for the minors involved. They interviewed college women who had been involved with an adult as youngsters, and found that only 3-5% (IIRC) reported the experience as negative (maybe the ones who got caught?). Since the results went so far against the social “party line,” the study was roundly condemned, but I don’t know if it was ever debunked or disproven. I only read the Amazon posting for it and don’t recall the title, but I’ll try to hunt it up (doing websearches for ‘pedophilia’ make me kind of nervous for some reason :eek: ). If the relationship is positive for both the child and the adult, where’s the pathology?

And on the subject of desire, how long can a man have a sexual desire without, in some way, acting on it?

Acting on it “in some way” is a bit more general than acting on it in a way that hurts someone. I got the major hots for Brooke Shields when she was on the cover of PEOPLE magazine after appearing in her soft-core film Pretty Baby. I’ll have to admit to acting on that desire by purchasing a copy of the film. How long did it take? Twenty years. Don’t imagine I’ll ever get around to doing much else about it, though.

[Typo_Negative]

Dijon Warlock, I don’t want to sound like a putz (happens too often already), but let me ask this.

Would you be comfortable allowing your young offspring to be around someone who desires children, sexually?

[Dijon_Warlock]

No putz noises can be heard from this direction. In fact, I’m amazed someone hasn’t asked this earlier. In so far as would I be comfortable…(I’m assuming you mean in an unsupervised setting) it’s certainly something I would be extremely mindful of at the very least. It would depend a great deal on the person in question: how well I knew them, how long I’d known them, how much I felt I could trust them, etc. Desire doesn’t automatically translate into action, but it’s something I would be very careful of.

It would also depend a great deal on my children, and what kind of relationship we had. How confident I was in them to let me know if something happens that they don’t like/approve of. How much I felt they understood the parameters of acceptable contact (not only society’s but also mine and theirs, which may all vary from one another), and the potential consequences of transgressing those parameters. Their age would have quite a bit to do with it, as well. I would be a lot more concerned with my children’s comfort with the relationship than society’s, though. My children would take top priority, not the opinions of strangers; clinically documented, legislated, or otherwise.

So I don’t think I would necessarily rule it out unilaterally. Still, I don’t have any young ones, so I take my own feelings on this with a huge grain of salt. Becoming a father might radically change my outlook on the entire matter, and I might become a rabid pedophile hater that thinks they’re all sick and need locked up, just like everybody else. I just don’t think so yet.

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by spooje *
**
I had a look at my roommates college textbook on Human Sexuality (a Cal State Northridge class, if anyone cares).
It stated that “relating to children sexually may represent a way to cope with powerful feelings of inadaquacy that are likely to emerge in sociosexual relationships with other adults”. You’d be hard pressed to find any scholarly or medical textbook that didn’t consider a sexual desire for children pathological. (if you can find one, let me know)

**

I have read similar things before, characterized in a like fashion. The problem with this sort of pronouncement is that (the ones I have seen anyway) it starts out with the assumption that pedophilia is an illness and then hypothesizes reasons for it. It wasn’t a whole long time ago that homosexuality endured similar “scientific” treatment. Certainly there are pathological pedophiles that prey on children, like Richard Allen Davis, the monster that abducted Polly Klaas, but is the pedophilia itself truly his illness? That is like blaming Dahmer’s crimes on his homosexuality. People that rape will rape, whether it be children, men, or women. It may be easier to force a child into such a situation, but I rather think it is the intent and willingness to rape that is the trouble, not the classification of the victim.

**
And on the subject of desire, how long can a man have a sexual desire without, in some way, acting on it? **

Well, priests, monks, and nuns seem to manage (not all of them, true). For the rest of us who do not want to give up all sexuality, doesn’t everyone or nearly so have some desire they have left unexplored? I personally have a very strong attraction to redheads- pale, freckle-faced, fiery maned redheads. They really “float my boat.” But I have never hooked up with one, and my wife is not of the carrot-top persuasion, so… It seems that there is one desire I’ll leave unsated. I’ve also known plenty of women over the years that I’ve fantasized about or deeply desired that I never acted on. So, I have to think that a man can have a sexual desire for basically his whole life without ever seeking to make it happen, especially when it comes with a social stigma like pedophilia. Personally, I would rather be accused of murder than child molestation.

[doreen]

It’s not illegal for kids to play football or go skiing without parental consent. The owners of football teams or ski slopes may choose to require parental consent, but there’s no legal requirement, especially if they’re playing football in the neighborhood park.

It’s also generally not illegal for a child (prepubescent) to have have sex with an adult, only the other way around ( that is, only the adult has committed a crime). There may be no legal requirement for a football team or ski slope to get parental consent, but along with that consent goes a waiver of liability ( you agree not to hold the team or ski slope responsible for injury,which is why they want it signed) and the child’s agreement has no legal effect.

quote:

Why are there age limits at all? I couldn’t say for certain, but I’d guess that there is some extreme lower limit beneath which the leaders of society are so certain that it’s not good for a child that it is to be assumed that any parent who would consent to it is not acting in the child’s best interests.

I’m guessing the same. The question that puzzles me is what prompts this decision by them. In other words, what is so inherently harmful about sex in the first place that we have to ban it outright, rather than simply assure it’s safety?

I’m guessing its slightly different. I suspect that the idea is no parent would give consent to their young child ( not a teenager, but an actual child) having sex unless the parent themselves were involved in some way ( and I’m sure we all agree that that’s a bad thing.

[Ms2001]

doreen:

It’s also generally not illegal for a child (prepubescent) to have have sex with an adult, only the other way around ( that is, only the adult has committed a crime).

If little Johnny and little Susie have a football game in the city park, neither of them is breaking the law. Even if they invite their adult friends Mortimer and Ethel to play, there is still no crime.

But sex is treated differently. If Johnny and Susie decide to have sex, there may or may not be a crime. If Susie and Mortimer have sex, or Johnny and Ethel, there is definitely a crime.

This is true no matter what - there is no waiver for the parents to sign before their kids play football in the park, and there is no waiver that the parents can sign to allow their kids to have sex.

[labdude]

I don’t think anyone has mentioned that a large part of America’s population considers any sex outside of marriage wrong and sinful. So if you ask 100 people if its wrong for a 25 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old girl, many of them will say yes because they consider all sex bad.

[Dijon_Warlock]

spooje: “You’d be hard pressed to find any scholarly or medical textbook that didn’t consider a sexual desire for children pathological. (if you can find one, let me know)”

One more note on this thought–the scarcity of such texts might be due to the unpopularity of the position, as opposed to the fallaciousness of it. You aren’t going to find many publications ciritical of the government in a totalitarian regime, either. Think for a moment if you had done a study yourself, and concluded that the evidence doesn’t support the contention of pathology in pedophilia; that rather sexuality is healthier for children to experience than be deprived of, and having responsible adults involved proves to be the best method of introducing it to them. Would you try to get it published? If you were a publisher would you print it, given the public backlash against such a position (however factually substantiated the position was)? And if you did manage to get it out on the shelves, what do you think would happen to it? And to you?

Ptahlis: “Personally, I would rather be accused of murder than child molestation.”

That’s exactly what is so bewildering about society’s attitude on this issue. Killing has less of a stigma attached to it than being affectionate. I’ve always heard that it’s the child molestors that are the most reviled in prisons. Not serial killers, who seem to at times get a sort of respect. I sure hope that makes sense to somebody, 'cause it sure doesn’t to me. I see it as a clear indication that something is badly warped.

doreen: “It’s also generally not illegal for a child (prepubescent) to have have sex with an adult, only the other way around ( that is, only the adult has committed a crime)”

That’s true, I think; but doesn’t make a lot of sense. The act is still prohibited anyway, so how can it be legal and illegal at the same time? It’s like if you get busted for selling weed (at least where I live). It’s against the law to sell, but the government still requires you to obtain a Drug Tax Stamp for the sale of it. So they’re taxing you for the sale of something you’re not allowed to sell in the first place. Eh? :rolleyes:

"I suspect that the idea is no parent would give consent to their young child ( not a teenager, but an actual child) having sex unless the parent themselves were involved in some way (and I’m sure we all agree that that’s a bad thing)."

I’m not convinced *I would agree that it’s a bad thing (why do you think it is, btw?). As said above, I’m not a parent; so any views I hold are hypothetical at best. But I cannot figure why children learning about sex (and even experiencing it early on) in a safe home enviroment from people they trust is worse than learning it from some horny teen in jr. high who just wants to be able to brag to his friends the next day. I would much prefer to have at least supervision over my children at this point, even if I didn’t choose to directly introduce them to the experience myself. I hammered out a quasi-essay/diatribe on this subject a while back, but in the interest of keeping my posts at subnovel length, I’ll only post it if anyone’s interested. It (to me) demonstrates the perniciousness of the current attitude on this subject, the damage it can do, and why I think we need to radically rethink the issue.

labdude: “I don’t think anyone has mentioned that a large part of America’s population considers any sex outside of marriage wrong and sinful. So if you ask 100 people if its wrong for a 25 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old girl, many of them will say yes because they consider all sex bad.”

Yep, and too many of those can’t understand why the rest of the world shouldn’t be obligated to follow their particular belief systems. People who consider all sex bad I do NOT understand at all. Maybe they’re doing it wrong? What that should have to do with anyone but themselves is beyond me. But they always gotta be in charge.

[doreen]

Mr2001

If little Johnny and little Susie have a football game in the city park, neither of them is breaking the law. Even if they invite their adult friends Mortimer and Ethel to play, there is still no crime.

But sex is treated differently. If Johnny and Susie decide to have sex, there may or may not be a crime. If Susie and Mortimer have sex, or Johnny and Ethel, there is definitely a crime.

This is true no matter what - there is no waiver for the parents to sign before their kids play football in the park, and there is no waiver that the parents can sign to allow their kids to have sex.

It’s true that sex is treated differently, but it works in both directions. While there is no waiver for a parent to sign to allow their children to have sex, there is also no activity which legally requires consent for which a minors’s consent is sufficient except for certain instances related to sex. In at least some states certain minors can consent to sex under at least some conditions ( I don’t think the age of consent anywhere is 18, and some states define it as a crime based on an age difference, so that a 17 yr old having sex with a 14 year old or a 20 year old having sex with a 16 year old has committed no crime). Minors can often consent on their own to medical treatment related to sex in some way ( abortion, contraception and STD treatment) while their consent is not sufficient for other medical treatment.

**Dijon Warlock **

doreen: “It’s also generally not illegal for a child (prepubescent) to have have sex with an adult, only the other way around ( that is, only the adult has committed a crime)”

That’s true, I think; but doesn’t make a lot of sense. The act is still prohibited anyway, so how can it be legal and illegal at the same time? It’s like if you get busted for selling weed (at least where I live). It’s against the law to sell, but the government still requires you to obtain a Drug Tax Stamp for the sale of it. So they’re taxing you for the sale of something you’re not allowed to sell in the first place. Eh?

A better analogy than the tax stamp would be medical treatment. If a doctor performs non-emergency surgery on a eight year old based on only the eight year old’s consent ( not a parent’s) the eight year old has done nothing wrong, but the doctor has. The issue is not that the act is legal or illegal, it’s that to have sex with someone without their consent is a crime, and certain people ( including, but not limited to children) legally are incapable of giving that consent.

I suspect that the idea is no parent would give consent to their young child ( not a teenager, but an actual child) having sex unless the parent themselves were involved in some way (and I’m sure we all agree that that’s a bad thing)."

I’m not convinced I would agree that it’s a bad thing (why do you think it is, btw?).

Because (and remember, we’re talking about a prepubescent child, not a teenager) it is virtually impossible for a child to consent (in the non-legal sense) without the influence of other factors (fear of punishment,being accustomed to obeying the parent, etc) specific to the parent-child relationship, just like it would be almost impossible for a prison inmate to consent to sex with a correction officer without other factors ( the authority of the officer, fear of punishment, etc) coming in.(BTW, in my state a correction officer who has sex with an inmate has committed a crime).

I would much prefer to have at least supervision over my children at this point, even if I didn’t choose to directly introduce them to the experience myself.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. If you mean you would make yourself scarce so that your fifteen year old could comfortably have sex with a partner( of the fifteen yr old’s choice) you approved of, that’s one thing ( and I wouldn’t necessarily say that it’s a bad thing). If you mean you’re going to invite a friend over to introduce your eight year old to sex, that’s another ( and I would say that’s a bad thing, because the eight year old is not really free to refuse).

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Dijon Warlock *
**

That’s exactly what is so bewildering about society’s attitude on this issue. Killing has less of a stigma attached to it than being affectionate.
**

Molesting a child is not “being affectionate”.

**
I’ve always heard that it’s the child molestors that are the most reviled in prisons. Not serial killers, who seem to at times get a sort of respect. I sure hope that makes sense to somebody, 'cause it sure doesn’t to me. I see it as a clear indication that something is badly warped.
**

Criminals who victimize children in any way are not too popular behind bars, primarily because even other criminals usually think it is wrong to do things to hurt little kids. Also, many people who end up criminals were themselves victims of some sort of abuse as children, sometimes sexual abuse. I think it is understandable that these people do not feel too kindly towards child molestors.

[Dijon_Warlock]

doreen:

If a doctor performs non-emergency surgery on a eight year old based on only the eight year old’s consent ( not a parent’s) the eight year old has done nothing wrong, but the doctor has. The issue is not that the act is legal or illegal, it’s that to have sex with someone without their consent is a crime, and certain people (including, but not limited to children) legally are incapable of giving that consent.

The surgery can be performed with the parent’s consent, however. With sex on the other hand, even the parent’s consent isn’t sufficient. That’s the puzzle to me. We allow parents to consent to their children riding in cars, playing sports, going into show business, all of the other things mentioned so far in this thread; but matters sexual are strictly off-limits. I’ve never been able to understand what is so inherently harmful about sex that even a parent’s judgment isn’t sufficient, and we feel it necessary to outlaw it altogether.

Because (and remember, we’re talking about a prepubescent child, not a teenager) it is virtually impossible for a child to consent (in the non-legal sense) without the influence of other factors (fear of punishment, being accustomed to obeying the parent, etc) specific to the parent-child relationship,

True, but we don’t use that as an explanation to outlaw all of these other things mentioned above. It was virtually impossible for me as a child to consent to going to Sunday school for exactly the reasons you’ve listed (parents: “It’s our house, and as long as you live here, you’ll do as we say!” Pretty scary thing to hear when you’re seven. No consent there.), but no-one outlawed them making me go, nor called it abuse. (You may also be overlooking another potential influence on childrens’ non-legal consent decisions, which certainly affects the decisions of most adults in this area: sex feels good and people like it.)

*I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. *

Simply that if my child is going to be sexually experimenting (at whatever age–from playing ‘doctor’ as a five year old on up to dating as a teen), I would much prefer to have some supervision and some control over the situation; as opposed to it going on behind my back where my child could be in danger and I was unable to protect them. As I’ve said earlier, my children would be my first priority, so they would always be free to refuse. I’m having a difficult time pinning down why they should not also be free to consent, however. Given proper supervision, where is the inherent harm in it (other than the deliberately imposed social backlash)?

Lamia:

*Molesting a child is not “being affectionate”. *

Very true, and I haven’t said it was. However, there are genuine gestures of affection that can be (and are) interpreted as molestation, depending on the circumstances and the person who’s passing the judgment. There are forms of contact which are affectionately intended, and (absent sufficient social conditioning of the child to prevent it) affectionately received. Yet society (or some third party, however well meaning) has chosen to declare it abuse anyway, and proceeds to hammer the child with messages to that effect until the child becomes traumatised by the experience. So while it is CERTAINLY understandable to believe hurting kids is wrong, what is not so clear (at least, to me) is why sexual contact is considered to be automatically harmful, and thus deserving of the same condemnation. Again, if we didn’t stigmatise it and persecute it so viciously in our society, from where would the harm come?

[Dijon_Warlock]

Here is the promised brain-dump I did on this subject some months back, as condensed as I could get it:

Part I

I was watching a daytime talkshow. The subject was families of a terminally ill person with a secret to unburden before it was too late. The only segment that I watched dealt with a woman who had cancer/cerebral palsy (don’t remember which, too long ago), whose daughter was accused her of molesting her when she was young. The mother had no recollection of this at all, and was devastated that the daughter could think such a horrible thing. They both agreed to undergo hypnosis to attempt to find out the truth (whether the mother was lying, and/or whether the daughter was, either-that is, whether it was real or a fabricated memory, or whatever they call them). The mother under hypnosis still could remember nothing, but it was the daughter’s session that really grabbed my attention.

The incident occurred (according to the daughter) when she was about twelve (the daughter is now an adult), and she was alone in the house with her mother. Her mother sat down on the couch beside her and explained that she was growing up now, and one day would be having her first sexual experience with a boy/man, and therefore she (mother) wanted to teach her what to expect. The mother proceeded to have them both undress, and without going into details, gave her an orgasm tutorial (the mother reportedly had one as well). The mother seemed delighted at the results and assured her daughter, “That’s what’s supposed to happen.”

The daughter recounted being bewildered and frightened, as she “didn’t know if this was right or wrong.” It has haunted her ever since, and cost her her marriage, her family, she can’t have relationships, etc., etc.; all the standard stuff (not to belittle this in any way). The rationale for why they think this happened is that because of the mother’s illnesses, the she was constantly doped on morphine, and probably didn’t know what she was doing. It never happened again, and for years the daughter repressed it, only to have it come out during therapy as an adult.

My question is, why is should this be automatically classified as abuse in this country? I will (at my own risk) state my point of view on this incident: I do not believe this was sexual abuse in any way on the mother’s part, and that the “damage” or “trauma” that arose from the incident (which is very real) was caused by our classification of nearly ANY sexually intimate contact between children and adults (especially within a family) as automatically abusive (this seems—again, to me—as unrealistic as classifying any act of intercourse as rape, or all people behind the wheel as drunk drivers). It is this sociocultural perspective that does the majority of the damage in a case like this (if not all of it), and is (I believe) the TRUE SOURCE OF THE ABUSE.

We, as adults (and especially parents), have it as our duty to raise and take care of children as best we can. This frequently involves putting children through things that are new, not understood, and sometimes frightening and even painful (think measles vaccines, or in my own case, rabies shots at age 10). I would guess most (if not all) parents of young diabetic children know the heartbreak of having their own children accuse the parents of hating them (or, perhaps worse, the children hating the parents), of being monsters, etc., simply because the parents must force the child to check their blood sugar and take their insulin shots. It hurt, and the child isn’t old enough to understand that these things are necessary to keep them healthy (and may not believe it—fostering the fear that it’s just a story to justify the torture).

More to Come

[Dijon_Warlock]

Part II

What’s more, as the child gets older and comes to understand their condition, that anger and mistrust is still down in there, and can manifest from time to time. However, no responsible parent would put their child’s immediate emotional contentment over their life-long wellbeing, and must grit their teeth and get through it for the good of the child. The only consolation to adults is the hope that someday the child will be able to accept that this was the motive all along. To a good number of kids, school takes on the same appearance—child torture at the hands of parents (or adults in general); same thing for some kids with Sunday School/Church. For girls, there comes the dreaded gynecology exam. But the kids are given no choice, and we feel justified in giving them no choice, because we believe that it is in their best interest.

Now then, with all that in mind, I ask again: why is what the mother did abuse? She was caring for her daughter, wasn’t she? Isn’t that her job as a mother? She was teaching her something that was going to be important in her life, and something that the better prepared she is, the easier (and less traumatic) it will be when it happens. It may have been bewildering and a bit scary, but it surely didn’t hurt as much as a tetanus shot; and wouldn’t it be better for children to learn about this at home in a safe enviroment from people that they trust, rather than getting pounced on by a drunk classmate at a party and having no clue what’s going on?

So why did it happen? Is her mother a pervert? Was she doing it for her own pleasure and exploiting her daugter like the sick child molester she’s supposed to be? I don’t believe so. The only piece of evidence to support this is the report that the mother may have had an orgasm along with her daughter. I am not a parent, and I CERTAINLY am not a mother, but I am guessing that the mother-daughter relationship is one of the closest that there is on a fundamental level. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that her mother may have responded to her daughter’s arousal. I’ve been the room with female orgasms (not as many as I’d like, but a few), and found it fairly difficult (not to mention disrespectful) not to respond likewise, and that was just someone that I knew, not my own flesh and blood. Imagine a mother sharing her daughter’s first. Surely, there’s a deeper connexion here than husbands having sympathetic labour pains.

Insofar as the morphine argument, I do believe that it may have had a role to play. However, rather than seeing it as messing up the mother to the point that she didn’t realise what she was doing (which IS a valid interpretation, by the way), it also appears to have lowered her personal judgment to the point that her natural, fundamental (read: human) mothering instinct was able to break through the socioculturally conditioned taboos to do what should have been done, laws or not. The daughter on the other hand, while growing up, has (courtesy of society) been continually bombarded by messages of how sick and perverted this was, and thus has been traumatised since childhood, with the result that now the mother wants to commit suicide because she feels so bad, the daughter feels sexually abnormal (because society tells her she should), and the whole relationship’s a mess.

I guess I just don’t see how the way society treats this is a good thing. Maybe I’m missing something.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Dijon Warlock *
**Very true, and I haven’t said it was. However, there are genuine gestures of affection that can be (and are) interpreted as molestation, depending on the circumstances and the person who’s passing the judgment. There are forms of contact which are affectionately intended, and (absent sufficient social conditioning of the child to prevent it) affectionately received. Yet society (or some third party, however well meaning) has chosen to declare it abuse anyway, and proceeds to hammer the child with messages to that effect until the child becomes traumatised by the experience. So while it is CERTAINLY understandable to believe hurting kids is wrong, what is not so clear (at least, to me) is why sexual contact is considered to be automatically harmful, and thus deserving of the same condemnation. Again, if we didn’t stigmatise it and persecute it so viciously in our society, from where would the harm come?
**

After I read this post I tried to tell myself that you couldn’t possibly really believe that no possible harm could come of adults molesting children if there wasn’t a social stigma against it. But your following posts certainly seemed to say that this is indeed what you believe.

I must confess that I do not understand what sort of thought process could possibly lead a rational human being to this conclusion. I do not see how you could possibly listen to any real account of childhood sexual abuse and then decide that the kid would have been fine if society weren’t unfairly prejudiced against adults who have sex with children. Your claims are so absurd that I don’t even know where to begin rebutting them. They are in fact so absurd that I personally suspect you have an alterior motive in posting them here.

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by Lamia *
**
After I read this post I tried to tell myself that you couldn’t possibly really believe that no possible harm could come of adults molesting children if there wasn’t a social stigma against it. But your following posts certainly seemed to say that this is indeed what you believe.

**

In DW’s defense, he is stating that some things are automatically labelled as molestation when they don’t truly deserve to be called so, although it is difficult to support or refute this statement without any specifics. I won’t comment on that idea’s merits until I have more specific examples, but an initial evaluation on the face of it leads me to think that such things are probably pretty darned rare.

**
I must confess that I do not understand what sort of thought process could possibly lead a rational human being to this conclusion. I do not see how you could possibly listen to any real account of childhood sexual abuse and then decide that the kid would have been fine if society weren’t unfairly prejudiced against adults who have sex with children. Your claims are so absurd that I don’t even know where to begin rebutting them. They are in fact so absurd that I personally suspect you have an alterior motive in posting them here.
**

I don’t see his ever saying that sexual abuse is okay, or that the only cause of trauma stems from society’s viewpoint. What he HAS said is that anything that involves any element of sexuality and children is automatically considered wrong, indeed not only wrong but almost inhumanly so, and that this message alone can impart shame and guilt to what might otherwise be a pleasant situation. (At least one other poster has admitted to having a very pleasant relationship with an adult while still a minor, so the tautology that “sexual relations with a minor is automatically horrific” seems proven false right there.) Of course, as predicted in the OP, any attempt at rational discourse carries the danger of people who reply like you did, with an emotional post and little indication that you had read the posts with any attempt to consider what was actually said. Rather than say “Exactly what kinds of things are we talking about here?” you automatically leap the chasm to “DW thinks that no possible harm could come of adults molesting children if there wasn’t a social stigma against it.” All he is said is that the current attitude of sex=harm is not warranted. Also, even attempting to say anything about pedophilia that isn’t a flaming condemnation usually gets the reaction of “I bet YOU are one of those sicko perverts!” Very kind of you to validate my faith in the knee-jerk.
Dijon Warlock:

Firstly, I would have to be a fool to disagree that there is a massive stigma associated with this sort of issue. Furthermore, I would also agree that this alone is capable of causing harm in and of itself, and that sex between an adult and a minor need not be intrinsically harmful to the younger participant, as testified to by some of the participants. However, the evidence that we do have does suggest that relationships that violate consent laws are extraordinarily likely to be exploitive, as well as far more likely to be harmful. Whether the harm comes from the sex or society’s reaction to it seems irrelevant really when it comes to drafting laws that protect children. If the choice comes down to protecting a whole bunch of kids at the expense of disallowing a few from having the relationships they desire for a few years, then I have to opt for the former. I realize others that champion personal liberties over societal benefit may have philosophical differences here, nevertheless that is my position.

While it is certainly fair to say that sex is beautiful, natural, and unfairly stigmatized in many ways in our society, that isn’t the whole story is it? In all reality, sex is far more complex than that. Its subtext is present in most of our relationships, and it is used as an expression of love, tenderness, lust, violence, commitment, and power. It is used as a reward, as a goal, as a means to acquire other goals and just for plain old fun. People pay for it, spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get it, fantasize about it, lie for it. They will try to exert pressure, from subtle hints to wheedling to outright violence to get it. It is present all along the continuum from the slightly flirty smile to the actual act. There is also the everpresent threat of disease and hope/fear of pregnancy. Given all the above, I find myself unable to think that any but the barest few children are ready to delve into learning to navigate these complex waters. A simpler litmus is for me to try and imagine exactly what kind of sexual relationship I could approve of between my daughters and an adult. No matter how hard I try, I am unable to conceive of anything that fits the bill.

Regarding the question of the pathology of pedophilia, I brought the thing up merely as another example of what I consider to be the very sorry state of some of what passes for psychological thought. Much that is non-rigorous and culturally based seems to pass for truth and remains unchallenged. I won’t comment on the case of the mother and daughter you mentioned because of the very poor evidence favoring both repressed memories and hypnosis as an indicator of accuracy. Both of those phenomena are so frought with difficulties that I cannot place any confidence on the daughter’s testimony.