In those cases where people are busted for arranging meetings with undercover cops who pretended to be underage, I’ve wondered if anybody has tried to use the defense that they KNEW the person was not a minor and that it was role-playing. I know adults whose sexual play involves dressing up like a child and role-playing situations that would be illegal if it wasn’t a fantasy, it’s not too much of a stretch to believe that kind of stuff could be extended to anonymous sex with someone you met on the internet.
Badzt: Last fall Patrick Naughton, formerly of Go.com IIRC was busted and used that exact defense. Unfortunately for him, it didn’t fly. The cops found a bunch of kiddie porn on his computer (his work computer mind you!) so there wasn’t much willingness to believe him.
That doesn’t make sense - doesn’t it stand to reason that someone who FANTASIZED about sex with minors might have child pornography, even though they might not ever act on their urges in real life?
I don’t like child molestors either, but I don’t think we should throw out reasonable doubt and restrictions on entrapment to throw them in jail.
Another thing that bothers me is these guys probably never would have been able to talk a real 12 year old girl into getting together with them. Girls that dumb are a true rarity. They had to be stupid to be tricked like that, but odds are no crime would have ever taken place if they were not entrapped.
Check out baiting.org. It’s a site run by guys who pretend to be young girls and collect chat logs from guys who try to get them to have cybersex with them. In several of them the guys obviously know they are not talking to a real 12 year old, but they continue with the fantasy anyway. Should THEY be prosecuted for indulging in perverse role-playing?
doreen: There may be a fourth possibility for that first fondling–that is, that she herself discovered it felt good (maybe during a bath, or something), and may have requested it herself. It’s probably more likely that the parent initiated the contact (it sounds in this case it was pretty standard proceedure for him), but it wouldn’t necessarily have to be so. There is also the possibility to consider that the father was doing it as much for his daughter’s enjoyment as his own. There are lots of activities parents do with their children that are intended for the child’s enjoyment as much as the parents’, if not more so (playing “Candyland”, watching “Barney”, “tea parties”, etc.). I’m not sure why this would have to merit being automatically ruled out as one of them.
I’m not sure I’d agree with this exactly. If the child enjoys the time spent in this way, and society doesn’t condemn it; why would the rarity of the contact make her automatically feel mistreated? Most parents don’t take their children spelunking or sailing, but I don’t think children who get to participate in these things feel mistreated just because their peers aren’t engaging in them.
True, social acceptance doesn’t make something “right” (slavery comes to mind); but in the case of beating there is physical harm being done, which is what makes it wrong. In the fondling example, there doesn’t seem to be any physical damage indicated, so the trauma seems to come exclusively from society’s condemnation of it. That’s what makes me question the legitmacy of the blanket demonization of it.
malkavia: Welcome to the discussion. First hand experience is a good addition to the mix, and I’m sorry things didn’t work out for you. Feel free not to answer anything that’s too personal, but your perspective is valuable, so I hope you don’t mind a few questions.
I think this echoes what I am questioning here to a point. I likewise wonder if it’s justified to rob someone of emotional and physical companionship just because they are (or are not) a certain age, yet that’s just what we do. It’s a very gray area for me, as well. Should we say that just because some of the relationships in question are abusive, that we shouldn’t allow them at all? Rather like outlawing driving just to get the drunks off the road?
A lot of people believe this, and I’m not contesting anyone’s opinion; I just don’t see why this would have to necessarily be true. Try substituting “sexual” with “physical”. Is the statement still true? I don’t think so. If the 8 year old liked to curl up on Daddy’s lap on a Saturday afternoon and watch the game with him, I’d say that’s a loving physical relationship. Why would fondling (especially at the daughter’s request) automatically change that? In Ptahlis’ example of ‘frontal pit tickling’ (sounds like a Monty Python sketch :)), that sounds like a loving physical relationship, as well. Why should that instantly transform into hideous molestation just because she’s starting to develop? Has his motivation suddenly changed from what it always had been? I don’t see how. So why should it be automatically considered as different? The only reason I can see is because society says so. Not a good enough reason in my opinion, but I guess we’re stuck with it, anyway.
You mentioned that the 25 year old you dated only wanted you as a fetish. If it’s not getting too personal (of course, I’d understand if it is; answer or not as you choose), I’m curious what convinced you of this. Was it just the simple fact of the age difference, or something more? It’s the socially standard belief that someone 25 dating someone 14 is always dating them because of their age, but again I see no reason why this would have to automatically be true. It of course doesn’t prevent from being true in individual cases, but I’ve never understood why it would be a guaranteed rule. There seems to be a common contempt for intergenerational relationships altogether, regardless of whether children are involved (look at Anna Nicole Smith and that billionaire guy, or how catty people are being over Michael Douglas and his new wife), and that seems to manifest as the belief that ALL adult/youth relationships have unsavory motives. I don’t think that’s a legitimate belief, however. As mentioned at the top of this thread, I dated a 14 year old my last year of high school/first year of college. My mother wasn’t keen on it, giving me the perennial “Why can’t you find someone your own age?” complaint. My response was, if the girl had been more my own age, I would have. I dated her because I was attracted to her, and she to me. Her age had nothing to do with it, as far as I was concerned. Thus, the complaint carried as much weight with me as if it had been “Why can’t you find someone your own race?” (As it happens, she was my own race; but if she’d been another, believe me–I’d have heard that one, and thought just as little of it. I was in love with her, not her birthdays or her skin color.)
I’m wondering (with all due respect to everyone involved) what the 19 year old was thinking, getting you pregnant at 15. I’ll be the first to agree that that’s not smart by any stretch of the imagination. But you have to realise that horrible breakups can happen at any age, and without years of experience in how to handle them, they can be quite devastating. That seems to me more a function of the age of the individual, rather than the age of their partner. Insofar as the second statement, I’d agree with it if you replaced “sex” with “intercourse.” Intercourse has a nasty habit of popping up babies (not to mention diseases) when they’re not wanted. Even with protection, it’s not safe enough to really risk (IMO) at the age you gave. Mutually gratificational contact in general, however, I don’t see as being in the same league of risk, though. It gets into that thorny question of “What’s sex?” Is your first kiss at a sixth-grade dance sex? Where is the line drawn, beyond which it’s all of the sudden harmful? Intercourse? Orgasm? Petting? Kissing? Slow dancing? Holding hands?
As to what you want at 15 being different from what you want at 20, you’ll get no argument from me in general. On the other hand, that doesn’t go for each and every thing individually. The 14 year old I dated broke up with me just shy of her 16th birthday and started dating a friend (?) of mine. She’s now early 30ish and they’ve been married about 15 years. Couple kids. Evidently, quite happy together.
Now I’ll stop rambling 
(Apologies to Ptahlis for commandeering his daughter’s breasts as a conversational topic. No offense meant, you know. Just a good example of where society may be doing more harm than good.)
Oh, I understand what you are saying. No crime has yet been committed, and there’s room for doubt about motivations. But I suspect that the real reson that such defenses have proved ineffective is that people want to err on the side of caution, which to their minds means putting the guy away. It’s not too difficult to follow the line of thought (even if unconscious): “Well, there may be some doubt about this guy, but if I let him walk, he may molest other kids. If I vote ‘guilty,’ it’s just one more pedo in jail, and he brought it on himself anyway.” I’m not saying I approve of such a thing, mind you, but I understand it.
Since most children have discovered it feels good long before 8,and they don’t commonly ask their parents to fondle them ( whether because they’ve somehow picked up society’s attitude at an extremely young age, they never thought of asking someone else to do it, or why bother to ask when you can do it yourself),the chances of that being the case are infinitesmal. Do you really want to society to simply accept it because of the tiny number of possible cases where it was initially the childs idea and ignore the far more likely possibility that the child was coerced in some way (even if only by the relationship}? Should we just accept any behavior because there’s a tiny possibilty that the presumed victim may have wanted it?
Because there’s a whole lot of room between not condemning a behavior and finding it acceptable.Unless society somehow decides that adults having sexual contact with children is acceptable,(not just making it legal,not just ending the overreactions, but finding it every bit as acceptable to fondle your child as it is to take them sailing} there’s always going to be that in the background.I’m not saying they’ll automatically feel mistreated, but there’s no reason to think society’s influence will end simply because the behavior isn’t condemned.
Not exactly. Outlawing driving would be like outlawing sex totally. This is more like outlawing drunk driving, even though every drunk driver doesn’t have an accident.We find the risk too high to allow it.
I will admit, Im entirely creeped out by this discussion and alot of views Ive heard concerning it. Call it social brainwashing, but I just cant see the other side in this. I understand that there are societies where these types of things arent frowned upon and where a girl of 12 or 13 seems ripe for the picking and able to start a family of her own, even. But you have to look at all of the other considerations. Childhood means something to us here that it doesnt in other societies. Its a time to learn and experience life through innocent eyes. You can remove social boundaries, but there -is- a chain reaction. A girl who’s engaging in sexual practices at 12 or 13 generally -isnt- writing poetry about horses or giggling with her friends about some 13 yr old boy she happened to have held hands with after Sunday School the week before. Whether you realize it or not, a parent or adult seeking that type of affection from a child is stunting their emotional growth. I’m proud to be in a country that seeks to protect its innocent. Im proud to be in a country that doesnt promote child labor and child sexuality. Im very grateful for these things. I think its important that you look at the basic breakdown of societal concepts from both ends. There are reasons we believe as we do. There are ideals that our laws promote.
In the cases of a child “wanting” that sort of physical companionship. To me, thats the sickest reasoning Ive heard yet. A child will bend to the will of authority rather easily. A child generally will -not- say no. And when it comes right down to it, Id rather protect those children than promote an adults sexual aberrations.
The question was stated, why is it a fetish when an older man goes for a young girl… and not just a matter of circumstance…
In my case, he was clearly a pedophile. He had relations with other young girls and would talk about friends of mine in the same age bracket with an obvious sexual hunger.
Im not accusing everyone who dates someone under 18 of the same thing. But I am saying, an adult who “falls in love” with a 14 yr old is most likely doing so because the chance of rejection is very low, the control aspect is very high, possibly for the taboo factor, or because the adult isnt of a standard maturity level.
I’ve seen quite a few relationships of this nature, some my own, some just as a third-party observer… and Ive never seen a healthy relationship blossom from it.
Something else that everyone seems to be ignoring. Society -is- what it is. A father taking a more modern outlook on things and “pleasuring” his daughter will only damage her in the long run. Be it from her own sense of morality or because society will tell her it was wrong. I just dont think its worth it. God knows, I wouldnt endanger my son’s happiness for -any- pleasure on earth. And if a parent doesnt care at least that much for their child, that child deserves a better home.
**
I can only guess that you have either never heard surivors of childhood sexual abuse share their stories, or that you are ignoring every bit of personal testimony that does not coincide with your theory. Children who have never been told anything about the possibility of sexual abuse or the immorality of sexual contact between adults and children still report feeling frightened and confused when touched “that way” by adults – even if they were not physically injured.
I have spoken with many victims of sexual abuse and have never, ever met a single one who said that she or he was hunky-dory with the sexual bit but were hurt by social condemnation of the abuse. Emotional trauma is, however, frequently caused by the abuser telling the child that if they ever say anything about what is happening then something bad will happen to them, their parents won’t love them anymore, etc.
Your claims simply do not gel with my own experiences or those of anyone I have ever met or even heard of. If there are children out there who genuinely enjoy sexual contact with adults and who would not be harmed by it at all except for social condemnation of such activities, then they must be a tiny minority. I do not feel at all bad about laws or social mores that deprive these children (if they exist at all) of sexual contact for a few years if that is the price of protecting the vast majority of children from sexual contact that they are not ready for and that will do them harm.
I think classifying adult men who lust after 14 year-olds as pedophiles is going to send this thread off-course. It’s only pedophilia if the child is pre-pubescent. There are many cultures where it is perfectly normal for 13 or 14 year old girls to get married and raise families - hell, in some states in the U.S. age of consent is still down there. Although in this country most adults would be disgusted by the idea of actually having sex with a 14 year old, most could be turned on by one. It’s natural, though not normal in our society. Someone who followed through on those impulses would be sociopathic to a degree, and inconsiderate of the lasting effects that would have on someone who is raised in a culture that teaches it is wrong (in most civilized countries), but I doubt any psychologist would see it as deviant behavior on the same scale as true pedophilia. Move that person to your typical third-world nation and there would be nothing wrong with them. Now, if you changed that example to a 9 year old, again most people would see it as wrong (of course), but on top of that most would not be able to be turned on by a 9 year old - they just don’t have the signals that tell your instincts that this is a person you can have sex with. The people who ARE turned on by 9 year olds are fundamentally different from everyone else, and it’s not just because they are ignoring societies rules, it is a deviation from normal human sexual behavior. Those pedophiles are the ones that spark the debate on mental illness vs. sexual preference.
You have child abuse cases where the father has a pattern of molesting their daughters once they get close to their early teens, but only then. I knew a girl who finally spoke up about her father when her younger sister was beginning to develop breasts. He was not a true pedophile, though he was sociopathic in that he ignored both the incest taboo and the taboo on having sex with people in their early teens. If he was a pedophile, he would have been molesting them far younger.
So many posts to read, and nothing said except three things that seemed to have relevancy to this conversation/debate.
[ol]
[li]Children cannot consent to sex.[/li][li]any sexual activity with a child is abuse[/li][li]No, it isn’t and yes they can[/li][/ol]
As what most would consider to be a pedophile, meaning, I find girls over 14 or so to be physically attractive, I’m sure I’ll fit in well here. Besides, the arguments are identical to the incest thread I came from. And equally lousy, IMHO.
- Why can’t children consent to sex? What is SO HUGE about sex? It is a pleasurable activity. Children can experiment with each other, I’ve seen, but not have adults do anything with them? How is one abuse and the other not? Ugh. And if it is a matter of the child not fully grasping the consequences, well, then all the more reason for an adult to be present /participate.
- I can’t believe this. Sexual abuse exists, yes. Sexual activity with a child is not inherently abuse. How could it be? It is an activity that simply feels good. Regardless of whether some find it yucky, that in no way implies that a pleasureable act is abuse.
- Vindication. To find that children can learn about sex in 6th grade from people they hardly know, but not from people they love and trust, and especially not by example? Come on. What is the big hang up and pleasure here? When I was a kid I played with myself all the time. I fantasized about teachers. I sure as hell was consenting, and I’d be damned if it would have been abuse. And you can never convince me that slide shows can teach anything about a “hands on” experience. Sex, as non-virgins can testify, is a learning experience in itself. You an’t gonna get it right the first time, but someone can show you how.
The abuse is external to the act, as some here have noted. People, sex in itself is not dirty. Children are not as stupid as you think, they know what feels good. Now, meet me in the incest thread, where I am discussing not just child sex, but child sex with family members!
C’mon! Toss those old bromides out! Quit playing the robot programmed by society!
I lost my virginity when I was fourteen and you can’t tell me I didn’t want to…how much better would it had been if I already knew what to do? I’d hate to think sex could ever be not fun, but aparently some think so.
Okay, here we go…
malkavia:* “In the cases of a child “wanting” that sort of physical companionship. To me, thats the sickest reasoning Ive heard yet.”*
I’m almost certain I’m not following this. Are you saying that children NEVER desire this aspect of a relationship, and to believe otherwise is just rationalising? Or are you saying that in the cases where they do desire it, that it’s better to teach them their desires are “sick”, and to grant those desires would also be “sick”? How is doing this not going to be harmful, as well?
“Something else that everyone seems to be ignoring. Society -is- what it is. A father taking a more modern outlook on things and “pleasuring” his daughter will only damage her in the long run. Be it from her own sense of morality or because society will tell her it was wrong. I just dont think its worth it. God knows, I wouldnt endanger my son’s happiness for -any- pleasure on earth. And if a parent doesnt care at least that much for their child, that child deserves a better home.” (bolding mine)
I am not ignoring this at all, and I agree with everything in this paragraph (except the ignoring part ;)). The boldened part is exactly the point I’m making, and the underlined part is what I think we need to look harder at, justificationwise. If the “pleasuring” is undertaken at the request of the daughter, she’s still going to be taught by society to believe she was abused. So does the father reject (abuse) her as a child, or let society abuse her as an adult? Those are the only two options available, and all I’m saying is I believe this to be an insufficient response to the situation. It means regardless of what the father does, his daughter will be abused one way or the other. However, if soceity didn’t teach her that “pleasuring” is automatically wrong, then there would be no abuse that I can see. THAT’S why I believe we need to reassess our mindset on this issue. We shouldn’t HAVE to do (to borrow a JDT phrase) a “cost/benefit analysis” to determine which option is likely to do the lesser harm. We shouldn’t HAVE to elect to allow our children to be abused in the first place, but society demands that we do so in this situation, one way or the other. I don’t see anything okay with that.
Lamia:* “I can only guess that you have either never heard surivors of childhood sexual abuse share their stories, or that you are ignoring every bit of personal testimony that does not coincide with your theory.”*
Neither. In fact, I’m listening to and addressing one of them right now. In this thread, even. I’m not ignoring any testimony from anyone (the girl I mentioned dating way early in this thread had been abused, as well; which is what originally got me thinking about the whole issue). The entire point of this thread is to listen to people’s views on the subject.
“Children who have never been told anything about the possibility of sexual abuse or the immorality of sexual contact between adults and children still report feeling frightened and confused when touched “that way” by adults – even if they were not physically injured.”
No doubt this is true, but the relevant question is: Is it always true? If not, then where is the abuse in those cases?
“I have spoken with many victims of sexual abuse and have never, ever met a single one who said that she or he was hunky-dory with the sexual bit but were hurt by social condemnation of the abuse.”
Well, absence of proof isn’t proof of absence, and all that; but if the only reason they would have to believe they’d been abused was because society taught them to, the point is they would still believe the sex was the abuse because that’s what they would have learned. That’s society’s message. Any child who doesn’t feel a sexual relationship is abusive isn’t going to report it as such, anyway (they may even be aware of society’s opinion, but just disagree with it). Thus, the likelihood of you having spoken to them in the context of abuse victim would seem to be low.
“Emotional trauma is, however, frequently caused by the abuser telling the child that if they ever say anything about what is happening then something bad will happen to them, their parents won’t love them anymore, etc.”
The sad fact of it is, however, that something bad will happen if they say anything. Society makes sure of that. Some may get told that the parents won’t love them, but others may get told (if the contact is coming from the parents) that their parents will go to jail. Sure, that’s traumatic, too; but the trauma isn’t coming from the parents, it’s coming from the authorities.
aynrandlover: “I’d hate to think sex could ever be not fun, but aparently some think so.”
Worse, some want to make it so.
(Now, why did Jean-Luc Picard just flash through my brain…?)
But you aren’t really listening to people’s views. You are ignoring, or worse still twisting, those parts of people’s stories that do not support your theory. You have accused victims of lying about whether or not they gave consent. I do not believe for one minute that you genuinely care about other people’s stories, you just care about putting forth your theory about how bad ol’ society is always keeping people from having fun. That’s why you’re not going to see any details from me about my own experiences or those of anyone who I know in this thread. It’s sickening enough to see you distort the experiences of strangers.
You are talking about a counterfactual situation. It’s fine and good to say, “How can it be abuse if the child desires it, enjoys it, and is not emotionally or physically harmed in any way?”, but do cases like this actually exist? You have failed to come up with any. All you have managed to do is take cases where people claim to have been abused and say, “Yes, but maybe they really liked it at the time and changed their story later because of society”. You’re making some pretty extraordinary claims with zero proof.
Now I don’t disagree that there are people who were sexually abused as children who turned out okay. Human beings are amazingly resiliant. Some people can suffer horrible things and come through without sustaining any longterm emotional damage. I have not, however, seen any evidence to support your argument that it is a good and wonderful thing for children to have sex with adults. I fully support a continued ban on an activity that is harmful to many people and beneficial to no one.
Funny how this mighty social stigma against child molestation is powerful enough to keep victims from believing that the molestation could be anything but horribly wrong, yet it is not enough to keep people from molesting children. It is not even enough to keep some people from openly advocating child molestation. Obviously people are capable of disregarding social taboos.
Society does not punish children for being the victims of sexual abuse. Children do not go to jail for being molested. They aren’t even held partially responsible for the crime. When adults, or even adolescents, are the victims of sex crimes then sometimes people will say that they “really wanted it”, “were asking for it” or “got what they deserved”. But it is extremely rare for anyone to accuse a pre-pubescent child of any such thing. In fact, you may be the only person I’ve ever seen claim that children might ask to be molested.
No, it is coming from the parents who choose not only to knowingly break the law but who attempt to force their children into a conspiracy of silence.
I submit to you thousands of years of human history. It was not uncommon for 13 year olds to wind up married before recently due to the life-expectancy rates. Are you trying to tell me that because humans live longer this act is not competely immoral? Or that much of our history of sexual relationships are based on non-consentual sex? I’m not sure I can agree that sex with a minor is wrong even if it is illegal; I think the law needs to be changed.
Kids didn’t “grow up” any faster then, we’ve only managed to live longer. And before you try and tell me that “That was life then” then you are admitting is merely a societal hang-up, not an inherently moral or immoral act.
Now, even using the term “minor” is loaded, because that is a legal term and no one thinks (I hope) that an 18 year old and a 16 year old can’t have sex. So by minor, I would like to clarify that I mean, in this thread, not the legal term but “far enough elong in puberty to enable reproduction.” Not that I think kids should have kids, just that they can pretend
I would also like to submit our entire television spectrum of shows that have sex somehow as a topic, whether for comedy or drama. Adults have a hard time dealing with it. To say adults are more equipped is a joke, we’re just as confused as the rest of 'em. In fact, sex, due to biases ormed through longer life, might just be more confusing for many adults because we take it so damn seriously.
I have known people who have been sexually abused, and of course some SDers who have admitted as such. I’m not slighting the fact that abuse can exist, I’m just stating it isn’t a package deal.
That’s not true. In fact, it is untrue in many ways. First of all, life expectancy rates for the past look extremely low because of the high infant mortality rate. People who survived childhood could hope to live a fairly long life – Socrates lived to be 71, and might have lived for several more years if not for the hemlock.
In some societies it was common for people to marry in their early teens, but this was not universal. Nor does early marriage always mean early sex. Until fairly recently Chinese teenaged girls from peasant families were often married off to little boys or even babies. This arrangement allowed to bride’s family to get some dowry money and the groom’s family to get another female worker around the house. There was no sex involved until the young husband came of age.
You will find precious few examples of times or places where it was considered acceptable to have sex with a girl before she began menstruating. While some girls in the past did begin menstruating by the age of 13 or so, this was nowhere near as common in the past as it is today. As recently as the Victorian Era many girls did not menstruate until they had reached their late teens. This is well documented, as the staff at early women’s colleges frequently had to deal with students who were distraught over their first period. Since it was the Victoria Era some mothers couldn’t bring themselves to discuss menstruation with their daughters and sent them off to college in ignorance of that particular fact of life.
There is no distant Golden Age in which sex with prepubescent children was as common as a sunny day. And that is what we are talking about here – sex with children. You can attempt to muddy the waters all you like by pretending that post-pubescent teenagers are children, but they are not. They are minors, but they are not children.
Much of our history of marriage is certainly non-consensual (note spelling). Given the prevalence of arranged marriages in history it is certainly questionable whether most intramarital sex, at least during the “honeymoon” phase, took place with the complete and uncoerced consent of all involved parties.
To what end? Do you honestly think that the little children are suffering because they can’t have sex with grownups?
That’s a pretty unusual usage of the word “minor”, since it excludes all prepubescent children. I suppose you can justify anything if you are willing to pretend that words mean things other than what they mean.
Oh no, the old “some children at six are more mature than some adults at sixty” argument. It just isn’t true. Take a human development class sometime. Children, no matter how smart or well-behaved they may be, are in a very real way not equipped to understand or deal with everything that adults can. Their brains and bodies are not fully developed.
You are stating it without any proof to back it up. There is plenty of evidence to show that molested children suffer physical and emotional damage. Despite many claims in this thread that sometimes adults having sex with children is a wonderful and positive thing for the child, I have yet to see anyone come up with any evidence to support this – not even a single anecdote about someone who attributes their happiness and success to the “special games” they played with Uncle Ernie as a child.
Originally posted by Lamia:
This statement utterly baffles me. You’re neither in a position to say this, nor do you have the authority to make such a decision on my behalf. Leaving aside for the moment that the statement itself is patently false, it’s fallaciousness has been demonstrated in this very thread. As noted earlier, the girl that I mentioned dating had been abused as a child, and I spent countless hours with her crying in my arms about what had been done to her. That you can sit there and accuse me of not listening to her (or anyone else, given the evidence to the contrary in this thread) is mind-boggling, not to mention rather sickening. Methinks perhaps you’re the one not listening to someone.
Ummm…cite, please? That’s a pretty blatant accusation. Care to back it up a bit, or just toss it out unsubstantiated? As accusations go, it’s a bit of an ironic one, given that you have twisted things that I’ve said just to find fault with them. Example? You said:
Now the post in question most certainly did NOT indicate that I believe no possible harm could come of adults molesting children if there wasn’t a social stigma against it. It didn’t say anything of the sort. What it asked was where the harm comes from if not from society in situations that are desired by the child, but we decry as abuse simply because they are sexual in nature. I made no mention of molestation, as you insinuated; nor was I asking about it. The harm from molestation is very clear: it is due to an indifference to the child’s wishes regarding the contact. That was not what I was asking about, if you’d bother to read the post you referenced. I was asking about contact that the child does not object to, but society does. Recharacterising my statements as being about molestation or abuse when they aren’t, and then condemning me for holding the view about molestation/abuse when I actually said what I said about simple contact is “twisting words,” if you ask me.
Again, a nifty little twist on your part. The only thing I can find in any of my posts that even resembles this allegation is my response to doreen’s recounting of the three daughters and their stepdad, in which I observed in relation to the 17 year old that a recharacterisation of the relationship was one possible explanation for the circumstances presented. To be more specific, I said precisely this:
So, in short, I recognised that in this one instance, the possibility that she is misrepresenting the nature of the relationship cannot be ruled out. You have turned that into me “accusing victims (note plural) of lying about whether they gave consent.” Twist, twist, twist, indeed. However, if you do consider recognition of possibilities to be equal to accusing, then I’d really like to know what you meant by this:
I didn’t bristle at this at the time, because to me you simply seemed to be tossing out hypotheses (however unexplained they were). However, if you consider doing so equal to making accusations (which you seemed to when I did it), then would you kindly back up these accusations of yours? “…intentionally taking a position more extreme than the one he really believes in…” sounds like a sly way of saying I’m misrepresenting my views. Sorta sounds like an accusation of lying to me, now. Also, “…or else he’s just trying to upset people.” Ever read this board’s definition of a troll, Lamia? Ever read this board’s policy on outing trolls on the boards? Care to clear me up on this bit of misunderstanding? I’d appreciate it.
If it makes you feel better, however, I will say this: people (especially children) do lie about what happens to them. Frequently. There can be enormous pressure on them from the adult engaging in the contact to deny that it’s happening when it is, and there can equally be pressure on them from child protection fanatics to claim it’s happening when it isn’t. To believe otherwise is practically delusional. Does that mean they always lie? Of course not. Do they lie? Absolutely. So I’m not quite sure what you’re taking issue with here, because (of course) you didn’t say.
Well, you can believe whatever you like, but again, your belief is inaccurate; and again, it’s not a call you have the authority to make.
Really?!? News to me. You seem awfully aware of my “agendas” and “theories”. More aware than I am, in fact. This is the first I’ve heard of this “theory” of mine. Again, the only thing I can find in my posts that even appears to resemble that remark is this:
Are you contesting the veracity of my statement here? Is that your point? Because otherwise, I don’t get where you’re pulling this “theory” from. The question being asked is where does the harm come from in the situations I’ve described (not you, me), if not from society’s condemnation of the situations in question? You have yet to answer that. Attacking me is only convincing me that you have no answer.
It’s also rather sickening to see you toss out these accusations with (to borrow a phrase) “zero proof.” Care to back this one up with anything?
How so?
You have failed to come up with an answer to my question. I haven’t claimed that cases like this actually exist, but I see no reason outside of society’s condemnation of them for them not to. Pondering whether there are such cases in no way addresses the question being asked, it simply avoids it.
Are you saying you can rule this out as a possibility in all cases? If so, you’re way ahead of everyone else.
Et tu? 
I’m not making this argument; I’m simply asking why (outside of society’s condemnation) it is always harmful, as we’re taught to believe? I’m assuming there’s a reason, as that would account for society’s ban on it. I simply haven’t gotten an explanation of what that reason is. Can YOU tell me, without “twisting” my question into some variant of “Why is abuse bad?” Could you answer my question, Lamia? That’s all I’m asking.
Got proof of this?
I’ve never claimed this. Got a cite to the contrary? I have posited hypothetical situations where the child asks for what we consider sexual contact, but never have I claimed they were asking to be molested. Twist, twist, twist!
Ah, but if society didn’t condemn it, there wouldn’t be a law to break, and there would be no need for a conspiracy of silence.
All in all, I do wish to respectfully request that in future posts, you restrict your comments to the issue being discussed. This thread isn’t about me (as flattering as it is to keep getting talked about), and your personal opinions of me (which have thus far proven to be far from accurate) are not germane to the discussion. Thank you.
Have you asked her your pressing question about why sexual contact between adults and children is harmful to the child? Perhaps she could put it in terms you could understand.
If the situations do not exist then there is no more point in determining whether they are harmful or not than there would be in determining whether it would be harmful to have sex with pixies or hobgoblins.
I’m not going to look over the entire thread again, but I am pretty sure your question has already been answered – multiple times at that. Children are not ust short adults. They are not fully developed physically or mentally. Their bodies are not ready for sex, and their minds are not ready to consent to sex. Now you may not believe this or you may not think it is a good enough reason, but that is the explanation. I don’t think you’re going to get a better answer than that out of anyone. You’re welcome to try, but if you do I’d recommend that you only do so if you think you’ll be able to respond to that person in a timely manner.
#1…children are ready for sex, you just don’t think so. They are ready physically. They, once having found that the thingy down there feels good when touched, are as ready for it as any other practice. The point Dijon and I are attempting to make is that it is society’s tortured view of sex that makes all pedophiles molesters. I don’t know how you can fail to see the point. You want a cite? I cite myself. When I was in sixth grade, I wanted sex. Plain and simple. I wanted it then just as I do now. I was attracted, at that time, to older females. Teachers and such. Had something happened between me and them I would see it as a total injustice to say that the teacher was a perv, a psycho/mentally ill, etc. As well, to say that I was a psycho for finding someone that age attractive is as equally tortured…after all, I find women that age (now that I’m that age) just as attractive. It is absurd to say that a person can be attractive and not attractive based strictly on age.
The argument against pedophilia is against abuse; ie-that there is no way sex with a minor can be consentual. This is wrong. In fact, I would dare say that children might be better equipped to handle sex than many adults precisely because they don’t have all the hang-ups we do. Sex is, at its core, two things. One, a biological act designed to create an offspring. Two, a physical act designed to give pleasure. They can coincide, but we are asking you to note that they don’t have to, ESPECIALLY now that birth control and such is widely available.
The case for pedophilia is one of breaking stereotypes about sex. It is clear people find the idea of a child consenting to a pleasurable act ridiculous. I find the thought that it is ridiculous ridiculous. That people find sex to be some all-important holy act puts mankind on an illusory pedestal of morality.
I know we’re supposed to be about fighting ignorance here, but I am not qualified to teach child development. Instead I suggest that you enroll in a class on this subject at the nearest institute of higher learning.
Perhaps you missed doreen’s post earlier in this thread:
That poor girl clearly wasn’t physically ready for sex. Many, many children are injured in similar ways because their bodies are not fully developed and are not ready for sex.
I don’t know how you can fail to see that victimizing children is what makes them molestors. If people want to think about having sex with children or have sex with adults pretending to be children then that’s their own business. But when they actually have sex with children then children get hurt, and protecting children from being hurt is society’s business.
First, just because you thought that you wanted to have sex does not mean that you were genuinely physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to do so. Perhaps you were, but I don’t see how you can be sure since it didn’t happen. I personally think it is unlikely. Every single person I know who was sexually active at a similarly young age feels that they were not really ready for it and that it was a mistake to become sexually active so soon.
Secondly, unless you were a late bloomer you probably were not a pre-pubescent child at the time. There is a huge difference between an adolescent (even someone in early adolescence) and a pre-pubescent child. Of course adolescents think about sex; by late adolescence most are even ready to have sex. But that has nothing to do with whether or not pre-pubescent children desire or are ready for sex.
The words “minor” and “child” are not interchangeable. A 17 year old is a minor, but most 17 year olds are perfectly capable of consenting to sex (they are even above the legal age of consent in most places). So yes, sex with a minor can sometimes be consensual. But I do not believe that sex with a pre-pubescent child can ever be consensual. You’re going to have to come up with something a lot better than “I thought about sex when I was 12” to convince me otherwise.
IMHO the child can give consent but any action no matter how good now would hurt the child later. That I think is the problem with abuse. Now Im talking about people who are 13 and under. Any sex with adults will impede or hurt their development.
In some cases, those cultures see marriage as a melding of two estates, rather than a romantic relationship. The child bride and the groom are married in a ceremony, then the girl goes home to her mother and lives there until she has reached womanhood, when she goes to her husband’s home and lives as his wife in body, as well as on paper.
In our culture, however, we dress this pragmatism up in romance and a man who wants a trophy and/or a woman who wants money can hook up with someone younger/older (who is more likely to have those things; in the West, the trend tends to be young=beautiful and older=wealthier), and pretend to have a relationship with them. Which I find exploitative.