Dr. Laura/Mary Kay

[Dijon_Warlock]

All quotes by Lamia:

Have you asked her your pressing question about why sexual contact between adults and children is harmful to the child?

The reason the contact was harmful to her was because it was forced on her. That doesn’t put her in any position to speak to all incidents of sexual contact between adults and children in general, so she couldn’t have answered the question I’m asking here, anyway.

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.

But if they do exist (and you haven’t proven they don’t, much less answered my question of why they can’t), then it is imperative that an accurate determination of harmfulness be made; otherwise the very society who is charged with protecting our children is actually abusing them in these cases. Is that okay with you? Because it isn’t with me.

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.

Then could you kindly point my dim self (:D) to the answer, since you won’t provide it yourself? I can’t find it anywhere, nor am I in the habit of asking questions I already have answers for.

Their bodies are not ready for sex, and their minds are not ready to consent to sex.

Depends on what you mean by sex. If you are talking about sex from a reproductive standpoint, then your statement is true. If you are talking about sex from a physically gratificational standpoint, then the first half of your statement is false, at least. Do you have proof that the second half is invariably true? I don’t.

Now you may not believe this or you may not think it is a good enough reason, but that is the explanation.

No, it’s only an explanation where reproduction is concerned. You’ve made no case for it being always true where mutual gratification is the motivation for the contact.

I don’t think you’re going to get a better answer than that out of anyone.

It’s beginning to seem as if I’m not going to get a better answer out of you. But since your answer is only valid in a reproductive context, I don’t really consider it sufficient to cover the question I am asking.

(said to aynrandlover)
I don’t know how you can fail to see that victimizing children is what makes them molestors.

No-one is failing to see this. What we’re failing to see (because you have failed to prove it) is why sexual contact of any sort must by definition always be harmful and thus victimizing (aside, of course, from society’s definition of it as such, which makes it so).

(also said to aynrandlover)
But when they actually have sex with children then children get hurt, and protecting children from being hurt is society’s business.

This is precisely why we must verify that society’s position that all sexual contact with children is inherently harmful is a valid one. Otherwise, in the cases where it isn’t, society becomes the abuser–which is the opposite of what it’s supposed to be doing. Two quick last notes: a few posts up, you said–

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.

Now, aside from the fact that you still have not answered the question in quotes (which I wish you would, if you can), the case discussed in this thread would seem to me to qualify as such a situation, given what I’ve read about it so far. Perhaps the mother was sexually abusing the son, but there is no proof of that offered in the articles that I’ve seen. Proof of the son being abused by society’s response to the situation has been clearly demonstrated, however. As near as I’ve been able to make out, the concerns were over co-sleeping (not in itself abusive), nudity (not in itself abusive), and alleged nursing against the child’s wishes. It’s the last that seems the most likely candidate for abuse, but I’ve noticed there is a curious lack of detail concerning the circumstances under which this occurred. So what does “nursing against the child’s wishes” entail? We aren’t told. Did she tie him down, force a nipple between his lips and threaten him with burning cigarettes if he didn’t suck because she craved the sensation? Or was it more along the lines of “Momma, I’m thirsty. Can I have a Pepsi?” “No, honey; soda is bad for your teeth. If you want a drink you can have some milk.” It seems that if the situation were along the lines of the former alternative, someone would have reported it. No one has. So:

Is a sound nutritional decision abuse? If the child wants candybars for lunch, but Mom makes him eat his vegetables, is that abuse? She’s making him eat them against his wishes, so should we take him out of the home? If not for vegetables, then why for breast milk? It’s a nutritionally sound decision, so there’s no harm there. If he’s genuinely uncomfortable with the delivery system (which is a perfectly valid one; it is what breasts are for, after all), there’s always a breast pump. The mother herself indicated that when he was ready to quit nursing, he would be allowed to stop. That was the whole reason he was still nursing at all–she was allowing him to choose when to quit. The fact that upon occassion it may have not been his choice of beverage in no way indicates abuse; but the fact that we are given no details of the circumstances surrounding these incidents leaves them ripe for assumptions of abuse on our part.

Finally, I did ask you to respond to several questions in my last post concerning statements you have made; including several about me. I would very much appreciate if you would do me the courtesy of addressing/substantiating/documenting/proving them. Thank you in advance, and I apologise for the lengthy turnaround times. I don’t get to the boards every day, and given the emotional, conclusion-jumping, knee-jerking potential of the subject matter, I will take what time I need to make sure I understand what people are saying to the best of my ability; and also to ensure that I am answering as objectively and accurately as I can. The thread isn’t going to vanish; if there’s some time between posts, that gives people time to think. Plus it’s my thread, so there!

[doreen]

Dijon Warlock:

This is precisely why we must verify that society’s position that all sexual contact with children is inherently harmful is a valid one

This, I think, is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I am perfectly willing to concede that, at least in theory, it is possible for there to be non-harmful sexual contact with children. I am not willing to concede that this means it should be allowed. There are few things that are uniformly harmful. As I said previously, every drunk driver does not cause an accident. Does that mean it should be legal to drive drunk? It is possible that in certain circumstances I wouldn’t be harmed by someone forging my name. Does that mean forgery laws should go out the window? Some minors wouldn’t be harmed by being held to certain contracts. Should we therefore allow minors to be make binding contracts? That’s just not a workable position. Either you have to allow almost anything because even though it’s harmful in 99.99% of cases, there’s the slight possibility that it might not be harmful, or you make every decision on a case by case basis,which has other disadvantages ( not the least of which is that if you’re talking legalities, a person may be unable to know that an act is criminal until after the fact)

[Lamia]

Look DW, I don’t like to put this so bluntly, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. It is not their lack of reproductive capablities that makes children physically unready for sex. What makes children physicaly unready for sex is the fact that their genitals are not fully developed.

I confess that I do not have more than a textbook knowledge of male physical sexual development, but having once been a little girl myself I can personally attest to the fact that a little girl’s genitals are not the same as a grown woman’s. They are not simply smaller, although that in and of itself could be enough of a problem when it comes to engaging in sex acts with an adult. A little girl’s vagina is also shaped differently from that of a grown woman’s. It does not lubricate itself in the way that a grown woman’s does. Blood does not even flow to the area in the same way. It is these things, not their inability to ovulate, that makes little girls physically unready for sex.

The issue of how children’s brains differ from those of adults is more complex. I won’t even attempt to get into it here. Instead I will suggest to you as I did to aynrandlover that if you are really interested in understanding why children are neither physically nor mentally ready for sex then you should take a child development course or at least read some books on the subject. As things stand it does not seem that you are well informed enough to discuss the issue intelligently. I apologize if I have previously mistaken your ignorance for something darker, and I wish that I was capable of explaining things to you to your satisfaction. As I am not, I don’t see that there’s any point in my further discussing the subject with you.

[erislover]

Doreen.
Indeed, but by making an analogy to drunk driving you are, again, stating a correlation to something that is inherently dangerous (being impaired when operating a motor vehicle, regardless of what actually happens) to sexual activity (which may or may not be inherently damaging–the point of this thread).

Lamia.
The point you bring up is more dubious. I’m wondering about what you refer to as genital development. Disregarding laws, since this is a SD GD thread and we deal with the thought experiments coupled with cold hard facts but not Supreme Court decisions (unless it is a fact about…oh, I’ll shut up now :)) I wonder when this development level is satisfactory.

Now, neither Dijon nor I are arguing for pre-pubescent sexual activity, I think we are more focusing on developing adolescents. Adolescents, I might needlessly add, who have sex on the brain to begin with (which is why we’re saying–hey, go for it!).
Having never had the opportunity to be female I must proffer my ignorance there. However, my parts were ready and waiting, though considerably less, uh, hairy, way back in sixth grade. It is also true that in many, if not all, ways girls develop faster than boys.

Care to fill in any blank spots?

In this regard, we find that sexual experimentation or downright sexual acts done deliberately between two of these adolescents is acceptable. If, should the situation arise, it comes down to a desire between an adolescent and an adult to shag, why not?

I see stories on the news about the older teacher and the younger student…the adult busted for sexual activity. Neither the child nor the teacher felt bad at all. Were they both scik, or just the adult? Meaning, the child must have been “coerced” without knowing he was coerced, or some similar thing.
I am not denying this is possible, just that it is the only option. I think a society which would quit making sex out to be an unfortunate necessity or a hush-hush-but-we-all-do-it-wink-wink-nudge-nudge affair would find this brand of “pedophilia” to be natural and not harmful.

Pending more “developments”

[doreen]

aynrandlover

Doreen.
Indeed, but by making an analogy to drunk driving you are, again, stating a correlation to something that is inherently dangerous (being impaired when operating a motor vehicle, regardless of what actually happens) to sexual activity (which may or may not be inherently damaging–the point of this thread).

danger: 1 exposure or liability to injury 2 something that may cause injury or harm

Neither of these definitions requires actual harm, only a risk of it so just as drunk driving is inherently dangerous but not inherently harmful so is sexual activity *with a child *. I know further on in your post you say that you and Dijon Warlock are not talking about pre-pubescent children, but “child” ,“minor” and “under the age of consent” are not exactly synonymous and I was responding to a point made about a child.

I see stories on the news about the older teacher and the younger student…the adult busted for sexual activity. Neither the child nor the teacher felt bad at all. Were they both scik, or just the adult? Meaning, the child must have been “coerced” without knowing he was coerced, or some similar thing

Since the “child” was apparently far enough along in puberty to be fertile, no, neither the adult nor the child was sick in terms of the attraction. However, the adult took advantage of him, at least in the sense that a 12 or 13 year old is certainly not considering the possibility of pregnancy and child support (which he is liable for, at least when he turns 18) or STD’s, etc, and if they don’t,it’s their own problem) , and the adult also has serious problems in that knowing she already faced criminal charges, she was still unable to stay away from him.When you’re talking about adolescents having sex with unrelated adults, the issue is not pedophilia or physical damage,or even coercion in the sense of implicit or explicit threats. It’s about the two parties not being on equal footing,and in fact, in this case, one having some authority over the other. We don’t necessarily have a problem with one adult taking advantage of another ( although sometimes we do- imagine a professor sleeping with an adult student in his or her class-won’t be arrested because it’s not a crime, but would almost certainly lose the job and if not fired would still face disapproval) but we don’t want adults taking advantage of adolescents.