I’m wondering if DW is talking about genuine gestures of affection (pat on the back, hug etc) being misinterpreted as molestation ( which I suspect is pretty rare, as I’ve never heard of a case of it) or people being afraid that an innocent gesture will be misinterpreted, and therefore not being affectionate ( which appears to be pretty common)
Is it really such a great chasm?
and later…
It sure looks like he’s saying that most or all of the trauma experienced by survivors of childhood sexual abuse is due to societal pressure and not the abuser.
If he had been, as doreen suggested, talking about affectionate gestures like a hug or kiss being interpreted as sexual abuse then that would be one thing. In fact, at first I thought that this was probably what he meant and was about to ask (as you suggested I should have) “Exactly what kinds of things are we talking about here?” But Dijon Warlock took away the need for such a question by providing his own example – a case in which a mother who was doped up on painkillers forced her frightened adolescent daughter to engage in sexual activities with her.
I don’t think he’s one of those sicko perverts. I think he believes he will get more interesting (and perhaps more honest) responses by intentionally taking a position more extreme than the one he really believes in, or else he’s just trying to upset people.
I don’t know if anyone else has already stated this view, I haven’t got the time just now to check all the posts, but here you go:
Pedophilia is not illegal or morally wrong. It is merely a sexual orientation.
However, sexual abuse of a child is illegal and morally wrong.
In every animal species except humans, the onset of puberty is synonymous with the onset of adulthood. If you are biologically equipped to reproduce, as all normal 14-year olds are, in the eyes of nature you’re ready to have sex. And so the hormones kick in, as well as the accompanying urges to explore sex.
It is neither unnatural nor abberant then that young teenagers should be sexually active, or that older adults should find post-pubsecent boys and girls to be sexually attractive.
For most of human history the onset of puberty was indeed the start of adulthood, legally and socially and morally. After all, until two centuries ago no one was expected to live much past 35. There was no time to waste, and for that matter, much to learn. School was over by 12, then it was straight to trade apprenticeship, farm work, or in the case of women, reproduction. Our society and life-span was essentially congruent with a natural timetable of infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Sex fit in well enough.
Now we live into our 70s and 80s (in industrialized nations) and so our life-stages are stretched out proportionally. Childhood lasts until 12, adolescence until 18 or 20. A person needs 16 years of education or more to become a qualified adult, and so we alter our social definition of adulthood to reflect the changing realities of complex society. Fair enough. It may take 18 years before someone is ready to take on the overwhelming responsibilities of adulthood and all its attendant decisions. I sure as hell wasn’t ready to be drafted, tried as an adult, held to contracts, or legally kicked out of my house until I was 18.
Meanwhile we still hit puberty at 12, earlier in fact according to the last cover story in TIME Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,58388,00.html). This means we’ve got a 6 year gap between when we want to have sex and when we’re told we should have sex, as well as a 6-year gap between what we find sexually attractive and what we’re told to find sexually attractive.
I don’t favor repealing these laws wholesale and declaring open season on young, possibly unsuspecting teens. The idea of civilized society is that we repress our base urges in favor of social order. Just as we don’t grab at each others’ cheeseburgers at the first sign of hunger, we do not grab at young teens that turn us on. We’ve collectively agreed that everyone’s a minor until 18, and for consistency’s sake we should keep it there.
But the sexual attraction that adults have for young teens and the attraction they have for each other has too long been stigmatized, possibly as a result of our general neo-puritan cultural attitude about sex. Expressing sexual desire towards minors is not allowed, even though the sexuality of minors is constantly used as a media tool.
The blurring of clinical pedophilia (the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) with the rather natural but taboo attraction to post-pubescent teenagers has fatally poisoned the possibility of rational discourse about the latter. Similarly, the understandable outrage at sexual abuse of minors has spilled over into irrational condemnation of mere expression of sexual thoughts towards young people.
Interestingly enough, the legal age of consent–as determined at state level–is quite variant. In most states it’s under 18, reflecting the mentality of a previous century when the laws were made. These statutes are generally as ignored as similarly old laws that prohibit women from riding horses on Sunday, etc. So the prevailing, often hysterical anti-sexual attitude appears to be more a product of cultural mentality than legal observance.
Perhaps the most absurd legal offshoot of this entire phenomenon is the federal law that makes it illegal for an American cictizen to leave the country with the intent of having sex with a minor in another country, where it may or may not be illegal. This is obviously an indefensible violation of both jurisdiction principle and the American ideas of national sovereignty, yet the law was passed unopposed because no politician could risk being accused of favoring the cause of “pedophiles.”
Freedom and justice, we hardly knew ye.
Okay, regarding the daytime TV case (which I said I wouldn’t comment on), here’s where I am. Before I even start out of the gate, I must state that the “TV fiction” inspired confidence in hypnosis as a recovery tool for memories is totally unwarranted. Good evidence exists to suggest that hypnosis is an occasionally useful tool in aiding recall, but is far more often an invitation to invent details and concoct memories of events that never took place. Even worse is the whole “repressed memory” phenomenon that took hold of large portions of the psychological community in the eighties and early nineties. Anyone remember the big Satanist scares? Remember when TV and magazines ran stories of Satanic cults that sacrificed babies, parents who ritually sexually abused their children and allowed their “covens” to do the same in bizarre rituals, and daycare centers who systematically abused children in the same sorts of things? That whole shameful period was a result of the idiotic “repressed memories” movement that had therapists supposedly uncovering these memories in their patients that they had long buried deep in their subconscious minds. The only problem was that these things never happened. The tales grew wilder and wilder, to the point of sheer absurdity at times, and almost every one of them had either Satanism or sexual abuse as an element, and usually both, despite the fact that no other type of trauma, no matter how severe, ever seemed to cause this sort of supposed repression. The “memories” encouraged by the therapists seemed every bit as real as other memories the patients had, and people believed them even when irrefutably and demonstrably false, simply because too few people are aware of how mutable and subjective memories are. We are accustomed to thinking that memory is a reliable record of events when it is in reality anything but. Families were torn apart and people wrongfully imprisoned or had ruined reputations as a result of this psychological fad. While it may not come close to repairing the damage done, it was satisfying when lawsuit after lawsuit began to bite the asses of some of these therapists, and reading of hefty damage settlements against some of them was actually in itself pretty therapeutic!
In short, I think it extremely likely that this event the daughter described never took place at all. The fact that the memory “came out in therapy” is pretty damning IMHO.
Given the above, what bearing does this have on DW’s musings? Well, the whole repressed memory debacle is a powerful testament to the extreme stigmatization of adult/child relations. Obviously when people created these horrible experiences under the tutelage of their “therapists” they reached deep down for something truly horrific, something shameful and dirty and dark. That sexual abuse and Satanism (the cartoonish, Hollywood kind by the way) are the answers people continually come up with would seem to indicate that there is indeed a level of stigma attached to it that goes far beyond any other common element of our collective imaginations. I said earlier that I would rather be accused of murder than child molestation, and I meant it. People would sooner suffer a leper in their midsts than a child molester, and the stink of that particular accusation will stay with someone forever, no matter how demonstrably innocent. Given all of this, it is no great leap to what I think DW has said: Given a relationship between adult and child, wherein the adult has no harmful intentions and takes no harmful actions, wherein the child is an eager and willing participant without regard to any issues of status or authority, wherein the relationship is one of mutual trust and pleasure-- given all that, the attitudes of society towards this sort of relationship including the potential rebukes, imposed feelings of shame, and the demonization of the participants are enough to cause damage. I think this is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
However, and this is the crux of the matter, how likely is it that we would see that ideal relationship posited as given? Damned unlikely to my mind for any pre- or pubescent child, with said likelihood increasing as the child passes through puberty and adolescence to adulthood. Perhaps, and this is a thin “perhaps”, if we had a society wherein we did not worry about such things, where kids did not have to be told about people not touching them in “funny” places, then such relationships might be somewhat more possible. Still, it would be a marginal “gain” at best. Adults still wield too much power, and related adults even more so. There is an implicit authority behind the requests of an adult that cannot be done away with simply by an extreme liberalization of sexual attitudes.
Back to the daytime TV case mentioned above. Although I clearly think this is a conflated fantasy that never happened, suppose the thing went down exactly as the daughter reported. I imagine from the vague description that it was sort of a “teaching masturbation” type thing as called for by former Surgeon General. (Yes, I know that that’s a mischaracterization of what the SG actually said.) Was it abuse? Hell yes! It was abuse for the very reason I mentioned above, namely that Mom had too much authority as an adult and by her status as the girl’s mother. Put simply, the girl was confused and afraid to say “no.” She was torn between love and trust in her mother and the desire to not do these things asked of her. Even assuming that the mother had nothing but the very noblest, if misguided, intentions, the fact of the matter is that such intentions are not able to trump the fact that the daughter felt coerced. The mother’s orgasm would also seem to cast doubt on her motives from the daughter’s point of view.
When all is said and done, the result of the actions is far more important than the intent. For example, my eldest daughter is 10 and a half. She is just beginning to develop “up top.” I have been accustomed to wrestling around with both my girls for a very long time now, much of which consists of tickling. It so happened that one day when I was tickling my daughter’s armpits I realized that my hand was, well, on something that didn’t used to be there. Now I certainly don’t want to give up rough-housing with her before I am forced to by advancing age (hers AND mine!), but there is definitely a potential problem there. If I tickle her pits, it’s always from behind now because, in the end, it doesn’t matter what my intent is. If she for some reason merely suspects that normal rough-housing might in fact be an attempt to grab something I shouldn’t, then the damage is done. How would she feel then? Betrayed probably. Loss of trust in me and perhaps others by extension. Perhaps guilty or ashamed. Afraid maybe. Bottom line: Her perception is more fundamental to the relationship than my intention. Perhaps if the world thought that adult-child relations were all hunky-dory, and she thought I was intending to initiate something like that and it was something she wanted then such feelings would disappear. But if the world thought adult-child relations were hunky-dory, and she thought I was trying to initiate something like that and it was something she did *not want, what then? The same feelings, or very nearly so, would arise as in our current society.
No, I do not agree that the true source of the abuse is the sociocultural viewpoint of such relationships. I will say that it is a likely contributor to some of the effects of said abuse. But I would have to say that the actual source of the abuse in such a case as you presented would be the inherent inequity between the mother and the child.
Lamia: My apologies for misinterpreting what you meant by “ulterior motives.” in your post. That coupled with the other things you wrote made me think you were accusing him of attempting self-justification. Apparently it was my knee jerking this time.
No problem; I wrote the post in a hurry right before I had to go to class, and my meaning was not as clear as it might have been if I had taken more time.
FWIW, I have heard of affectionate gestures being interpreted as molestation. One of my highschool teachers was accused of molestation because he hugged a boy who was very upset over something. This was not something sly or secretive - he was talking to the kid in the cafeteria and gave him a quick hug & patted him on the back because he started crying, in full and public view of many other students. There were a number of witnesses who vouched that there was NO ‘inappropriate’ contact and the boy in question refused to testify, despite parental pressure to do so. Nonetheless, this (great) teacher ended up leaving because, as has been mentioned, you can NEVER live down these accusations no matter how transparently innocent you are.
I’ve also known a few parents falsely accused of child molestation, generally during custody battles. Since this sort of thing usually involves coaching the kids to testify against the parent, it is IMO extremely harmful to them.
Why do you think people are so “afraid that an innocent gesture will be misinterpreted, and therefore not being affectionate ( which appears to be pretty common)”? Because these misinterpretations never happen? WRONG, it’s because they happen so often and with so little justification, much less need for evidence or proof.
Of course, I also have problems with the current belief that you must teach your children about being molested in order to protect them. I think this paranoia also causes great harm to a lot of children. (I call it paranoia because the actual probability of molestation is so small compared to the fear of it.)
I would have to agree with DW that this societal fascination with pedophilia and child molestation does greater harm than the actual events - but I’m speaking in general terms rather than specific. By that I mean that while individual acts against children are without doubt horribly traumatic and harmful to those individuals, the current setup (which often does NOT protect individual children) causes quite a bit of harm to ALL children, and to many innocent adults as well.
WTF???
Why would your daughter EVER get the idea that your tickling and possible inadvertent brush of her breasts might be “an attempt to grab something you shouldn’t”?
Possibly because she’s been so indoctrinated by society that ANY so-called ‘sexual contact’, however harmless and unintentional, between minors and adults (much less parents and children) is EVIL with a capital ‘T’?
Sorry, but I think you’ve just proved DW’s point more than disproved it.
She shouldn’t get that idea. My point is that the consequences of such a misinterpretation are so potentially harmful that it doesn’t matter what my intentions are. I do not contest that innocent things are taken as abuse on a regular basis. In fact, such an occurrence resulted in my switching career plans when I was in my final year of an Elementary Education program. The fear and paranoia about the issue are both palpably real, and I do not dispute DW’s claim that it is in and of itself harmful.
For the sake of argument, let’s reverse the situation. Suppose I WERE to continue rough-housing and I took every opportunity to do so with the ulterior motive of getting my jollies by the tickle-the-armpit-while-grabbing-breast move. And suppose that, because she loves and trusts me, my daughter were to never even consider that this was my motive. In this case she gets zero trauma, even though I would be intentionally abusing her. Again, it is her perception of the events that determine what, and how much harm is done. That’s all I am really saying. The perception of the kid is ultimately the trump card over the intention of the adult. Does this mean that innocently intended actions can be abuse? Yes. Does it mean that some abuse can go unnoticed? Again, yes.
Darn it. I need to preview first! I said:
I should have said “Does that mean that innocently intended actions can have the same effect as abuse?”
Two other things- When I was in the last year of an El Ed degree, the father of a longtime friend lost his job as a janitor in a high school. He had been mopping the hallway and several students were going to class. One of them, an attractive young lady as it turned out, slipped badly and was on her way down. Instinctively, he reached out and caught her with one hand, mop still in the other. This one-handed catch also included a handful of breast, and his reflexive urge to stop a fall was what cost him his job. He was not fired, but was asked to resign “for the good of the school,” even though the event happened in front of several witnesses as did the incident with the teacher you mentioned. As a then unmarried man considering working with children, it made me think long and hard about whether or not I wanted to continue into the teaching profession. At the time, it seemed like this sort of thing was happening left and right, although this may be simply because I had a heightened awareness of it. Teaching has other strikes against it (in addition to many positive aspects of course), but the idea that my career could be basically over and my reputation ruined merely because of an unwarranted accusation of wrongdoing with no evidence for it was enough to cause me to seek other employment options.
Also I wanted to ask: “EVIL with a capital ‘T’.” What the heck does that mean?
OK, I can go along with this to an extent, but nowhere near as far as you’ve taken it. The kid’s perception is important, but should it be the overriding factor?
In your explanation, a parent is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. It’s abuse even if the action goes unnoticed by the child, and it’s abuse if the child doesn’t like it even though no harm is intended. I guess we should all cease and desist from touching our children in any manner whatsoever, just in case they may not like it.
I hated being touched by my parents. They never touched me in a sexual manner, but I was an introverted child and was emotionally uncomfortable with being touched by anyone. I guess I should claim to have been abused because my parents hugged and kissed me and I DIDN’T LIKE IT.
If innocent actions can be ‘abusive’, then exactly what isn’t? Only what kids like and understand? So I guess that means that homework, dental appointments, grounding, curfews, any punishment of small children, etc etc etc etc etc are abusive. ???
Again, this seems to go right back around to DW’s point that the harm is caused by societal misinterpretation of what constitutes abuse, rather than by the actions themselves.
Have you ever considered that you may be harming your daughter emotionally by your decision? She may well interpret your change in behavior as an emotional withdrawal, which she would probably assume (as children usually do) to be her fault. Or possibly that you’re uncomfortable with her ‘new’ body, because there’s something wrong with it (either specifically, e.g., it’s ugly or generally, e.g., it’s bad because it’s growing up and becoming ‘sexual’). I realize that’s not your intent, your intent is to ‘protect’ her.
However since intent doesn’t matter according to your credo, you could be guilty of emotionally abusing your child, even while you go to great lengths to protect her from the possibility that you might possibly, accidentally, unintentionally upset her by doing something that could, by the most extreme of interpretations, be considered ‘sexual’ by some bizarre segment of society.
(BTW, I’m not trying to criticize your decision. It’s your child and, obviously, you must behave and interact in whatever manner you are comfortable. But you DID present this as an example of ‘how things should be done’, more or less, so I’m taking it in that manner. Nothing personal or offensive intended, 'kay?)
I didn’t say that misinterpretations never happen (of course they do), just that I don’t think they are particularly common. The fact that people are afraid of something doesn’t mean it must be common. Did you ever hear the “Lights out” story? Gang members ride around in a car with the headlights off at night. When someone flashes their headlights, they follow that person and kill him/her as a gang initiation. Never happened,but when I first heard it 10 years ago, people were convinced that it was true, and were actually afraid to flash their headlights.
**
Well, obviously I don’t think everything that a child dislikes is abusive, and I didn’t say that intent was completely irrelevant, just subordinate to perception in this area. The perception of sexual abuse is enough to cause all the negative consequences to follow, from poisoning the relationships between the adult and child (as well as other family members, friends, and spouses) to loss of employment and even prison. The perception is what leads to the consequences, rather than the intent, and therefore it is wise to avoid something that could easily lead to a misunderstanding.
In the case where a parent is intending abuse even though the child is unaware of it, well that depends on how one defines abuse of course. I would include activities that use the person sexually even if the kid was unaware as abusive. If someone snuck in and felt up a kid in her sleep, for instance, I would consider that activity abusive, despite the fact that the child wasn’t aware of it. If you steal something from somebody and they don’t notice, you’ve still committed theft after all. Same here.
No offense taken at all. Firstly, I doubt that she will even realize that my behavior has changed all that much. I still wrestle around and tickle her as much as I ever have, and I still go for the armpits. I just am more mindful of the particular technique I use is all. There are plenty of ways to play rough without that one particular thing. It is only because such a gesture might possibly lend itself to misinterpretation so easily that I decided to avoid it. And to be honest, it’s easier for me to make this change now, than it will be later, when she is going to be more sexually aware of her body and even more developed.
Sorry if I came off as preaching that my way was THE way things should be done. It’s merely the way I see it, and others fall elsewhere along the spectrum of course. I don’t fault DW for his views. I understand what he is saying and partially agree with it, just not to such an extent. Societal pressures probably do account for a large amount of the trauma that arises from this sort of thing. However, I think there is plenty of potential harm available even in the absence of extreme societal condemnation. I see it as a contributary cause of harm, but to a lesser degree than DW does. If he believes the 3-5% figure to be indicative of the truth of things, then I would say a far lesser extent.
I see much talk about legality, biology, and nature, what about intent?
It seems clear that a 13 year old is not a fully formed person. So many things will change the next few years. Yes, there are many mature 13 year olds, but many of the things that are interesting and important to that mature 13 year old today will not be next year.
With this in mind how can a sexual congress with an adult be in that child’s best interest? I’m not stating that a 13 year old is not a sexual being, often times a 13 year olds are very caught up in/with sexuality. What I am saying is that an adult has the responsibility to act in the child’s best interest. To act on the sexual attraction would be to objectify the child as a tool for sexual or emotional gratification for the adult. It is not likely that the experience is going to be fulfilling for that child since (as it has been stated above) the child’s consent is questionable. Often times the result of the interaction leaves negative effects on all the child’s future relationships (listen in any evening to LoveLine for some examples).
How can an adult argue that the intent is in the child’s best interest to have sex with him/her?
Hi, folks…first off, thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. It’s certainly provoked some heavy thought on my part, and hopefully others as well. That’s what’s needed IHMO, and it’s encouraging to see it happening.
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."
Nope, not quite. Firstly, “molesting” by its very definition is harmful. Closer to the question I’m asking (and I haven’t made up MY mind on this, so my belief is still suspended) is whether sexual contact sans social stigma is inherently harmful to children. Not “molesting.” Of course, if you’re going to define all sexual contact as molestation, then you won’t see a difference between the two, and will consider them to be synonymous. That’s part of what I think we as a society need to re-examine: is considering them to be equivalent the best way of viewing them, and in the best interest of the children, given the effect that perspective has? And if they ARE identical, then why?
“They are in fact so absurd that I personally suspect you have an alterior motive in posting them here.”
HEY, now…
This response is precisely what discourages rational dialogue on this subject. As I mentioned in the OP, “…as any time you even appear to do less then vehemently object to the “P” word, out come the torches and pitchforks (you must be one of them!)”. My “motive” for posting this thread is to get an intelligent discussion on the subject; which I think is important, given what an impact it has on us as a society, and especially on our children. We owe it to them to make sure we are handling it the best we can. The only way to accomplish this is to take every adverse effect of our “official” position (and there are many) as an indication we need to take another look with a view towards improvement. Does that clear it up a bit?
Ptahlis:(See what you started!? ;)) “I don’t see his ever saying that sexual abuse is okay, or that the only cause of trauma stems from society’s viewpoint.”
Just to be clear to everyone, FTR: I think sexual abuse of ANYONE is wrong. I am also not intending to say that the ONLY cause of trauma comes from society’s reaction to sexual contact with a child. What I AM asking is where ELSE does the harm come from if not from society? If sexual contact were NOT automatically defined as abusive, and the child was not taught to be traumatised by it, where does the harm then come from? I’m assuming from reactions here that it’s believed it still comes from somewhere. I’ve just been unclear as to what the inherent source of that harm is, which justifies society’s vehement outrage against it; and that’s what I started the thread to learn. In other words, if the equation sexual contact=abuse/molestation is uniformly valid, why is it? I’m not saying it isn’t, but I don’t understand why it should be.
“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.”
Exactly. Is this position really best for our children?
“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.”
Maybe, maybe…but if the harm we are protecting them from comes from the very society doing the protecting, it seems it might be a relevant issue to address. I remember when the Jodie Foster movie “Nell” came out. There were several news stories going around at the time about the actual case the movie was based on. A couple kept their daughter tied to a chair for something like the first dozen years of her life. When found, she couldn’t walk, couldn’t communicate, seemed massively retarted, and never recovered from the treatment. However, they DID successfully protect her from being killed in a car accident. :rolleyes: The question we have to ask when deciding how to protect children, is whether the protection technique could be worse than what we’re protecting them from.
doreen:"I’m wondering if DW is talking about genuine gestures of affection (pat on the back, hug etc) being misinterpreted as molestation ( which I suspect is pretty rare, as I’ve never heard of a case of it) or people being afraid that an innocent gesture will be misinterpreted, and therefore not being affectionate ( which appears to be pretty common)"
Both are relevant to the discussion. “Genuine gestures of affection” ARE frequently misinterpreted as molestation. What disturbs me about the way society views this is that we are teaching the children we are trying to protect to misinterpret them as well. Instead of taking the pat on the back, hug, etc. as it’s intended; we are teaching them to be afraid that they may have been molested. The fear of misinterpretation is very justified, given the consequences of that misinterpretation, and thus we’re creating a fear-based mentality that exists because we insist on it, not because there was necessarily any real danger in the first place. The paranoia is isolating us all from each other, and children (especially) raised in emotional isolation don’t exactly turn out hunky-dory.
Lamia: “Is it really such a great chasm?”
If you’re clear on what I’m saying, yes. I think there is a huge chasm there, and a very fundamental one to address. I’m not saying that all harm comes from society so much as asking where else it comes from. If it weren’t for our position on this, then sexual contact would not be nearly as strictly considered abusive, and thus the equation of sex=harm would be false. By virtue of our position on it, however, the equation becomes true. Is that the better option? In short, if we say sex=abuse, then sex=harm. If we say sex doesn’t necessarily = abuse, then sex doesn’t necessarily = harm. Which is better?
The study I was referring to was one that I simply read the Amazon posting on. I did put in the question of the ones who got caught being in the 3-5%. Without a doubt, those would be negative experiences. We as a society would make certain of it. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the statistic, nor do I have an opinion on it. It would, however, tend to indicate that these relationships aren’t nearly as harmful as we’re led to believe, provided society doesn’t get involved. Maybe that should be telling us something.
“I don’t think he’s one of those sicko perverts.” (whew! ;)) I think he believes he will get more interesting (and perhaps more honest) responses by intentionally taking a position more extreme than the one he really believes in, or else he’s just trying to upset people."
I’m not probably as settled in my point of view as I may be coming across at times. I DO believe the questions need asked, and the issues examined, however. Not trying to upset anyone (not for THIS, anyway. What do you think I am, suicidal?).
GuanoLad: No argument from me. None at all.
Karellen: Excellent contribution; welcome to the fray. I think one thing that contributes to this blurring and confusion which hasn’t been addressed (until now :eek: )is the terminology we use to discuss this subject. There’s sort of a triumvirate of concepts here the boundaries of which are in much dispute:
Reproduction—Sexual Contact—Non-Sexual Contact. Charting out exactly the valid parameters of each would go a long way toward resolving a lot of conflicts that this issue raises. Some people believe that the second must reside completely within the first, which obviously isn’t how things really are. Many more people believe that there is a clear demarcation between the second and the third, which I think is likewise not how things really are. There’s a good deal of overlap. Is (to put Ptahlis’ head on the metaphorical guillotine) tickling armpits sexual contact, or non-sexual? Many people find armpit tickling quite erogenous. Other people don’t. Many people (children come to mind) don’t draw a distinction; it’s simply fun, and pleasurable contact. Is teaching them to draw such distinctions psychologically good for them? It’s certainly safer, given society’s mindset; but if society didn’t require us to teach children physical boundaries, would they still be better off if we did anyway? As Ptahlis points out, ultimately his daughter’s feelings should be the final standard of acceptance for the contact. My problem with society is that it doesn’t allow that. Society trumps his daughter.
The clock is looking like time to be getting off the boards, and these posts are getting novel-length. Parting thought—Ptahlis, I think “Evil with a capital ‘T’” is like “Trouble with a capital ‘E’”. 
Dijon Warlock:
At this point, I’m becoming convinced that you live in a very different world than I do. I have never seen a magazine article, book, television show ,etc that advocates teaching children to be afraid that a pat on the back etc is molestation. Might some paranoid parents do this? Sure, but some paranoid parents don’t ever let their children out of their sight ( and I mean that literally).Doesn’t mean society teaches it to all children.The closest I’ve ever seen is advice not to force your child to hug or kiss a relative if they don’t want to- very different from advice to teach them that that hug or kiss is molestation.The reason given is not that the hug or kiss is molestation, but rather, that being forced to hug or kiss Aunt Ethel when they don’t want to impacts on how free they feel to refuse any gestures they don’t want.
About the study - depends on exactly what the study said. If it said that only 3-5% of those who had sexual contact when they were under 18 with someone who was over 18 thought it was a negative experience, I’ll buy it, because that would include the large number of people who had sex at 15-17 years old with someone who was 18-21.Those situations are not pedophilia, not generally considered to be terrible, and are often legal. On the other hand, if the study said that only 3-5% of those who had sex before 12 with an adult felt it was negative,I’d start looking at the study carefully.
DW,could you please give your definition of sexual abuse? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but I’m wondering if perhaps you and I are disagreeing due to semantics. As to what harm can result from sexual contact with a child, well,that depends.I have had occasion in the past few days to come across a person, who 25 years ago, had sex with his 11 year old stepdaughter. Somehow, he injured her during the sex,(I assume because of a size mismatch or something, since there wasn’t any beating ,etc involved) causing a hemmorage and leading to her death.That’s pretty severe harm, although admittedly rare.About five years ago, he was accused of fondling his 8 year old daughter.Just recently his 17 year old daughter gave birth , and alleges that he is the father and has been forcing her to have sex with him for about five years. There the harm is less severe, (ending up with a baby she doesn’t want at 17, and feeling that she needs protection from her father rather than being able to look to him for protection) but more common.It’s my own belief BTW, that this particular man is not a pedophile, but simply someone who sees his children as his property, to be used as he wishes ( similar to the slaveholder mentality),and if I’m correct, that view, in and of itself, is harmful. It’s also not unheard of for the involved adult to cause the child to fear society’s reaction. For example, the child may be going along with the contact, and at some point resist. The adult then threatens to tell the parents that the child has been going along, and says the parents will be upset and blame the child for going along up until this point to combat the resistance.
Going back to your original post, I find this:
In fact, except in the case of an immature 13 year old (one who is physically indistinguishable from a 8 year old,say)the attraction would neither be abnormal nor a mental illness. It’s not pedophilia to be attracted to a young,but physically mature teenager.It is illegal for a 35 year old to actually have sex with a 13 year old, but there are other issues than pedophilia involved - exploitation and the 13 year olds relative inability to appreciate the possible conseqences (STD’s, pregnancy,emotions} and consent with those consequences in mind. Those issues don’t only come up with minors. It is not a crime for a college professor to have sex with a student in his class, or for a supervisor to have sex with a subordinate ,but there’s such a power imbalance that until the power is more equal (the student graduates,or someone transfers or changes jobs} the professor or supervisor is likely risking job consequences and society’s disapproval even if there’s no explicit threat of retaliation for refusal.
Now a question - Do you think a clear-cut case of pedophilia- for example,a person who is primarily attracted to 6 or 7 year olds- is abnormal or a mental illness?
Good grief, it’s been weeks…I was giving long thought to this thread, and found myself (along with others) helplessly mesmerised by the ramblings that are the Jack Dean Tyler threads. Sorry, folks. Back to reality for me.
doreen: I was edging into the semantics question with my last post; but as I recall, ran short on time and the thing kind of crumbled at the end. So your question isn’t sarcastic; it’s quite proper and bears an answer. I’ve given this quite a bit of time to percolate, and this is the best I have come up with:
What are my criteria for sexual abuse?
1: Is there physical damage?
Originally, this was going to be a sufficient criterion, but after thinking more and reading threads on this board relating mishaps during sex due to momentary lack of coordination, etc.; I’m tempering it with a subclause:
1a: Was the damage accidental, or due to negligence/intent?
No damage, no abuse under this rule. Damage present due to accident, no abuse (again, under this rule); abuse if damage is due to negligence/intent.
2: Is there consent?
The issues surrounding consent (and its various incarnations) have made this issue difficult to come to mutual understanding and/or agreement on, so for the purposes of this analysis, I’m stipulating “consent” as being personal, individual consent. Not informed, not legal, just freely granted. Coerced capitulation does not count as consent. This includes compliance achieved through force, threats, intimidation, other forms of emotional manipulation such as guilt-tripping or peer-pressuring, limitation of options or deceit.
[An example might help here: If Mother announces to child, “Dinner’s ready. We’re having liver and onions,” the child can’t give consent to eat them, as he has no choice. If Mother asks the child, “What do you want for dinner, liver and onions or Brussels sprouts?” and the child picks one over the other as the lesser of two evils, there is no consent, since the options were limited to things the child doesn’t like. If, however, Mother asks, “What do you want for dinner?” and the child joyously cries “PIZZA!”, then we have consent by my definition. No understanding of the nutritional consequences of eating pizza by the child is necessary.]
3: Does society define the contact as abuse?
If yes, then unfortunately, I would have to say it is abuse. This is because society’s condemnation of the act will result in it causing harm to the individual (even if it hadn’t otherwise), by convincing that individual that they were abused. My contention (which I may be wrong about) however, is that there are some things (not all or even most, but some) that society declares to be abusive, which would not be harmful if it were not for that designation.
So where does this leave me with doreen’s example?
[sub]Warning: The following may at first reading outrage some of you. This is NOT my intent. Please, please don’t jump on me until you’re finished and clear on what I’m saying and why. Please. Plus, I’ve already acknowleged that I may be wrong about this. I’m fighting my ignorance as much as anyone’s.[/sub]
To start with the tragedy of the 11 year old…(God, how awful):
1 & 1a: Clearly damage done. Is it abuse? At first, I would have said “Absolutely,” but further thinking and the addition of my subclause has caused me to take a very cautious (and reluctant) step back. If (and we don’t know this, so it’s speculation) we can guess from her age that she was physically a virgin, and this incident happened during her “deflowering,” then some bleeding would be expected. It’s theoretically possible that the extent of the damage wasn’t realised until it was too late to save her. In that case, I would have to take the shocking position that under 1a above, we cannot conclusively establish abuse on this point, although it’s very likely.
**2: **Consent? By my definition above, we cannot say. We can guess, and we can speculate, but we do not know. She may have gone along with it; perhaps preferring the (however questionable) safety of her stepdad for the trauma of her first time experience to some kid at school. Not likely, but possibly. Once again, we can suspect abuse here (and odds are, we’d be right), but we cannot conclusively establish that it occurred.
**3: **What does society say? Abuse. First two criteria are thus irrelevant.
On to the seventeen year old:
1 & 1a: Depends on whether you wish to call pregnancy “physical damage.” I’ll leave that up to everyone’s personal opinion. Was it accidental? We don’t know. Abuse? Can’t say for sure.
2: There was no consent according to the daughter. If that’s the case, then there certainly is abuse present. Again, though, not to upset anyone, but we don’t know if this was the case. We only have the daughter’s word on it. It’s theoretically possible that she had gleefully gone along with this relationship (and maybe even the pregnancy), until something caused her to sour on it. Maybe it was finding out her sisters were also being “paid attention to.” Maybe she was jealous and went for revenge, maybe her protective instinct for her sisters fired up. Maybe she’s telling God’s honest truth. I don’t know, and am making no assumptions. But until the facts are established, abuse on this point cannot be established with certainty.
3: Society says it’s abuse, so it is. If she’s pregnant at seventeen, and has been having sex with him for five years, then yes–society says it’s abuse, regardless of the first two criteria.
The eight year old is the interesting case, as it provides a situation where I believe that society may be the main culprit:
1 & 1a: There’s no mention of physical damage, so let’s assume (in the absence of info to the contrary) there was none. No abuse at this point.
2: Consent? Once again, by my definition above, we cannot say because we don’t know. There’s probably lots of ways to “persuade” a child to allow fondling, many of which I would term abusive as outlined above. However, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that the child enjoys the contact (fondling, when done properly, feels good), and thus requests it herself, much like the child mentioned in my example requests pizza for dinner. So consent is possibly present. Abuse? Cannot say, but let’s postulate for the sake of argument that she does request it because she likes it. Her favorite way to spend a Saturday afternoon is sprawled in Daddy’s lap while he watches football with one hand down her shorties. In that case, I would say consent has been given according to this criterion, and thus there is no abuse on this point.
3: Of course, society says it’s abuse, and will teach the child that this is so. As a result, she will eventually come to believe it, and thus the abuse is then present. My question is, if society didn’t teach her to feel abused, would there have been any harm actually done? If not, why are we teaching her to feel abused when she wasn’t? That’s what I think makes society the abuser in this case, and the dad at best is an accomplice. He knows what society will teach her, and thus is not looking out for her long-term well being. Put another way, he drove the getaway car, but society shot the teller and robbed the bank. So is it abuse? Yes, unfortunately it is. But I don’t think it should have to be, as I don’t see what inherent harm it does (brain tumors? peptic ulcers? anything?).
A quick answer to your last question, and I’m finished for the night. Do I think the person is abnormal? Abnormality is simply being vastly outnumbered by people different than you, so I’m not sure that it matters. Mentally ill? If the desire is so overwhelming as to push the person into harming others, then yes. If not, I see no reason to consider it an illness. I think the reason people believe it is one is due to their equating sexual desire with the mating instinct. If mating cannot occur, there’s something wrong with the desire for contact. However, most of the sexual desire people experience isn’t reproductively rooted, but motivated by physical gratification which all humans are capable of experiencing. Thus, when looked at from that standpoint, there is no reason to consider a physical attraction to children a perversion. It is, I believe, just as much an orientation as any other (if vastly more socially disenfranchised). One thing you CAN say about a pedophile is that the only two choices for a social life he’s allowed are NONE and CRIMINAL. Not much of an option list…rather like picking between liver and onions or Brussels sprouts…
I am more than willing to concede that in this example, at some point, the eight year old may have enjoyed and even requested the fondling. My problem is the first time it happened. It strains the imagination to think that she saw her friends being fondled by their fathers and decided to try it (as might have happened with pizza). It’s also unlikely ( but possible) she saw her parents fondling each other and was invited to join then (as is most likely to have been the case with pizza.) It’s far more likely that the first time, he simply did it, leaving her with a choice or going along or risking whatever the consequence was ( even if the only consequence is displeasing him),a situation closer to “we’re having pizza for dinner”. Sure, the kid can refuse to eat it,( all kids don’t like pizza) but there’s going to be a consequence, whether it be the kid has to find something else to eat, the parent gets annoyed because s/he has to change dinner plans or make something else, or the kid doesn’t eat.
You’ve got a point here, but society’s influence has two parts. First, society says it’s unacceptable, and therefore she comes to believe she’s abused. However, even if society took no position, she would likely feel she was mistreated, simply because most parents don’t fondle their kids. I can imagine a society where an 8 year old would not be psychologically affected by being fondled by a parent. It would have to be a society where such behavior was not only not prohibited, but also accepted and common. I don’t think society as a whole is going in that direction. And ( slight hijack to a moral, not social or legal point) even if it was common and accepted to fondle your 8 year old,in and of itself, that wouldn’t make it right, any more than it’s right for a man to beat his wife and children in a society where such behavior is common.
This brings up an issue that has irritated me for some time.
If a 40 year old male cop goes on to AOL and pretends to be a 12 year old girl, catches the eye of a pedo, and the pedo and the cop arrange a meeting, how is it possible to BUST the pedo? The pedo thought he was going to meet a 12 year old girl, but in fact he was going to meet a 40 year old cop. Looks to me like thought policing.
Compare it to drugs… if I buy parsley thinking it’s pot…can I be busted for thinking I’m buying pot? Of course not!
Take it further. Let’s say a 19 year old woman looks believably 14. She hooks up with a pedo and tells him she’s 14. They actually have sex, all the while with him thinking she’s 14.
By the same logic that the cops use in my first scenario, the guy can be busted.
And that’s just insane.
Stoid
By the way, the title of this thread intrigued me… I couldn’t imagine what Dr. Laura had to do with the Tupperware of cosmetics companies, and how it could possibly be a Great Debate.
“Should Dr. Laura use her influence to sell Mary Kay to unsuspecting listeners?”
stoid
Oh dearie, Im going to attempt to be as unbiased as humanly possible here, because several valid points are, in fact, being made.
But Im speaking from a different perspective. Im not speaking from the perspective of a curious outsider or even an adult who finds children appealing. Im speaking from the other side of the fence… someone who’s been the younger partner in what many would consider a pedophile relationship.
But first, thought policing. I feel the cop is justified in busting the guy who meant to hook up with a 12 yr old -because-, if not busted… It would only be a matter of time before he found a true-to-life 12 yr old, and we MUST protect the youth. While I dont feel its immediately necessary for that man to be imprisoned, he should be counseled. Homosexuality should be NOWHERE near this topic. As an adult, you assume a certain responsibility to take care of yourself and make competant decisions. I do feel that sex with mentally incompetant folk should be illegal, but thats kind of a gray area as I wouldnt want to rob someone of emotional and physical companionship just because they were mentally challenged. But thats a whole different thread.
If a pedophile finds children attractive but never mentions it, never attempts to make contact with a child, is never found to keep kiddie porn in their possesion and isnt lobbying to drop the age of consent, I dont see a problem. Because christ, we all think weird things when we masturbate, face it.
BUT! There’s no such thing as a loving sexual relationship between an adult and a child. I’ve been in these before… The first -consentual- one (Not counting molestation by an older father figure relative from ages 9 through 12, Ill get to why this matters in a moment) was a relationship with a 25 yr old at the age of 14.
Fact: If I had not been sexually abused in the first place, I never would have sought the attentions of someone so much older than myself. I was looking to be victimized. It was comfortable for me.
Myth: I was a mature 14 yr old capable of consenting to sex. Granted, I came off as reasonably intelligent and I pondered things most children my age didnt. but I was NOT emotionally capable of dealing with sex and the consequences therein. Had I become pregnant, I would have been in a world of hurt. When he broke up with me, I became suicidal and without direction. I sought and found in an older man, the abuse registered when you KNOW someones taking advantage of your youth. He didnt love me as a person. He wanted me as a fetish. I have to live with that to this day. Its not an easy thing to realize.
I dated older men for awhile after this, eventually marrying a 19 yr old at the age of FIFTEEN and having a child. I dont know what my parents were thinking. My child will not be permitted to foul things up nearly as bad for himself. Granted, Im -okay- now… I dont seek out children, I dont rape teddy bears, etc etc… But children shouldnt have to go through the kind of sick self-discovery that I had to as they grow up.
Anyone under the age of 17 or so really shouldnt be having sex in the first place. Be it with an adult or peer. They’re just not mature enough to -make- those kinds of decisions. You will argue that some can… but its not worth the teenage pregnancies, lovesick teenage suicide, etc resulting from so many… to not just make the others wait an extra couple of years and see what happens.
Again… a gray area and one that I dont have all of the answers for.
But the problem with harboring feelings for children and not believing they’re wrong is the gradual progression of events that may lead to collection child porn, (which I think IS wrong, somewhere a small child lost their dignity to their fathers camera so you could get your rocks off) and the possible progression to acting on these feelings.
If you -are- drawn to children or emotionally immature/incapable (i.e. the mentally handicap, people with alzheimers, animals, corpses) I would seriously suggest doing some soul searching, chances are you’ll find past abuse in your life that links to it in some manner.
On an almost unrelated note, I dont think Mary Kay LaTourneo is attracted to children in general… But either way, I believe she should have had the common sense and respect for her student to wait until he’d matured and try again. Keep in mind, aside from ages 0-2, ages 16-19 hold the strongest intellectual/emotional growth you’ll ever experience. With this knowledge we must assume that what someone wanted at 15 will be INCREDIBLY different from what they want at 20. And at 22, Im living proof of this.
Thanks, I’ll stop rambling now.