-
Could you please stop picking apart my posts and responding to them line by line instead of forming a coherent paragraph or two? It makes it hard to respond when I have to keep referring to your post repeatedly.
-
I never said (or if I did I shouldn’t have) that you can’t think and feel what you do. I said you shouldn’t take any actions motivated by it. So if you’re walking in the grocery store and spot a kid you’re sexually attracted to, don’t stop and initiate interaction with him/her. If the kid smiles at you, smile briefly back and just keep walking. Is it really so ridiculous to suggest that maybe you should limit your interactions with children you’re sexually attracted to?
-
I’m getting tired of you reading “you’re a monster,” “you’re going to rape someone’s kid”, “hie thee to a nunnery” in my posts. You don’t want me to malign you/demonize you/distort what you say? Fine. Stop doing it to me.
-
Yeah, children are sexual in age-limited ways. I don’t have a problem with kids exploring their sexuality with their peers (in ways that are consensual and, I don’t know, non-damaging or whatever). Can we all agree that an adult interacting with a child sexually is a problem? It’s unbalanced age/experience/advanced sex drive/position of power or authority that’s the problem.
The beauty of the RMSC is that it doesn’t matter what you or I think is a likely age people will be able to pass. We just need to make sure we have a good standard and whoever passes will be ready and whoever doesn’t pass won’t be. My opinion simply isn’t relevent.
Now, as for my utterly irrelvent opinion, yes, I do think it is possible for someone in that age range to pass, but since we don’t actually have a test prepared, I can’t test that hypothesis. Likewise, you can’t really demonstrate that someone in their mid thirties could pass it either, for the same reason.
The only real justification I have is this lovely quote from the great Albert Einstein:
- Why?
I’m not sure of that at all. It might very well be a fantasy of mine. I don’t think it is, but that doesn’t really mean anything. That’s one reason I’m not pushing for moving the arbitrary age line down into my age of attraction. It’s entirely possible that when all’s said and done, no one in my age of attraction will be able to meet the standards I put forward with the RMSC.
I’d still count that as a victory, because the goal isn’t to enable me to have sex with kids. The goal is to get rid of the unjustified, arbitrary age lines and replace them with a defensible standard.
You are well armed with all the standard responses to the debate. And I’ll not defend the arbitrary legal age-spread for consent. It’s a simplifying assumption. Sometimes the law has to do that. It’s still dealing with changes in technology that can label a 15 year old as a sexual predator for a poorly taken camera shot + MMS. (Which in and of itself is a pretty clear demonstration that younger kids don’t always do the ‘smart’ thing.)
I’ll say that sexuality has, in the past, had some pretty significant drawbacks. In that time, a 10 year old was not particularly equipped to raise a child. Either socioligically or physically. You cannot convince me that act of procreation is natural and fine for someone who hasn’t physically grown to maturity. Sure, it feels good, but you also need the reflexes to keep from getting something…unexpected.
I’ve seen relationship issues with adults that were in different phases of life. A 26 year old in a relationship with a 32 year old may have issues due to being at a different part in their development. As would an 18 year old and a 26 year old. Or a 26 year old and a 10 year old. You ask:
I say I absolutely can. What’s important to a 12 year old? The cool comic? The latest collectible? How well the Little League team is doing?
What’s important to a 16 year old? What crowd you hang with? What ‘scene’ you belong to?
How bout as a 30 year old…how’s my credit rating?
Ever read a book as a kid, then read it again as an adult? Dija see additional layers to the story? Signs, foreshadowing, and portents? You think you just happened to miss that as a child?
You can debate all possible sides of this, find the pat answers…it doesn’t change that the vast majority of kids below a pretty easy to define range, aren’t equipped.
Let me ask…Do you have children? Because pointing at paragraphs that describe development, and experiencing it firsthand are VERY different things. And I’m not even talking about sexuality. One day a child CANNOT figure out how to ride a bike, the next, it’s a non-issue, never to be forgotten. There are aspects of life they don’t need to experience early.
And there’s a BIG difference between nudity in the household and ‘sexual expression’.
I am sorry that the quote system here makes it difficult for you to parse my responses by removing the context. I write this way because it is intended to make it clearer what I’m responding to.
By claiming that I shouldn’t take actions motivated by it, you transfer the criminal/antisocial element from the action or behavior to the thought behind it. Thus if you or I do the exact same thing in a given situation, and our actions have the exact same response, by the standard you are putting forward, you seem to think it’s possible for your actions to be moral and mine to be immoral because we were thinking slightly different things when we did it. I simply can’t accept that you don’t realize that this is saying that my thoughts and feelings are the problem.
Then please, finish your sentences. When you trail off about what you think the consequences will be if I do violate whatever taboo you’re proscribing (in this case, looking at kids, talking to kids, etc. if I happen to be attracted to them). If you don’t tell me what it is you’re so afraid will happen, I’m left to infer from the most likely options. You don’t want me infering things? State them outright.
So to repeat a point from earlier:
Not really, no. You need to define these power differences, prove that power differences never arrise in acceptable sexual encounters among adults, and demonstrate that these power differences by definition invalidate any possibility of meaningful consent.
Just because I’m taller than someone doesn’t magically make me an authority figure. Or, as I’ve stated in other forums:
It’s one I’ve engaged in many times.
And this also has a standard response:
What is not smart about being blind-sided by an idiotic law that no one bothered to explain to them? Their ignorance of said law exists only because information about it was deliberately concealed from them for the same foolish reason they never published the list of Quiditch fouls. There’s someone who wasn’t doing the smart thing here, but I’m not about to blame the 15 year old.
You are aware that birth control beyond the laughably ineffective “pull it out” maneuver exists and has existed for millennia, right?
Also, since you decided to invoke the N-word:
So you’re saying that people who might have difficult relationships should be legally barred from having relationships?
Good. These are absolutely vital questions, and I’m glad you’re treating the question seriously…
…or not.
Please tell me this was some sort of joke and not intended as a serious answer. There are way too many painfully obvious holes in this for it to be anything but self-parody. (Setting aside, for the moment, that you failed to answer the question about what mental tools were available or not, which was the initial question.)
I’ve reread books only rarely, since my reading style is to put books I’ve finished aside. I don’t reread them often because most of the time I don’t actually get anything new out of them on rereadings. So sorry to disapoint, but using my personal experience wasn’t exactly the best angle to approach this argument.
In other words, I can give you logical arguments, page after page of evidence, and nothing I can say at this or any future junction will change your preconceived notion. I can’t say it was really unexpected, but it is a bit sad for you.
Again, if you could define what that “easy to define range” is, define what you mean by “equipped”, and prove both that your “easy to define range” is when they become “equipped”, that it is impossible to become “equipped” at any other time than this “easy to define range”, and that your definition of “equipped” is actually relevant in any meaningful way to the appropriateness of doling out these basic rights, we’d be all set. Unfortunately, I’ve seen no willingness to even attempt to do so.
No. Does that mean you’re suddenly relived that I’m not in a position of authority over them, or that you now have a piece of ammunition you will use to attack my credibility in the debate without actually touching my argument?
And this is relevant to the current discussion…how?
No one needs to experience sex. Ever. What’s your point?
Where was I ever suggesting otherwise?
Thanks for answering honestly.
more questions:
How well do you remember your own childhood?
Did adults approach you for sex?
(assuming ‘yes’) how motivated were you by the desire get their approval vs. sexual desire?
Are you still in touch with whoever approached you?
How much do you think hindsight has effected your answers here?
Ok. I went too far in my earlier post and I apologize and amend it as follows: I do not think that you need to avoid all children all the time. I think you need to avoid interacting with children sexually which means not interacting with them when your motivation is sexual. Playing with a kid because you just want to play with her? Yay. Doing so because you want to be able to be near her/touch her because you find her sexy, not yay.
And by the way, you seem to be quite defensive on this subject, which is understandable, but also counterproductive. Please stop with the sarcasm and (as I mentioned earlier) distorting what I say. The fact that you turned around and attacked me a bit made it very hard for me to admit that my earlier position was unreasonable, and if your goal is to debate something intelligently and possibly open people’s minds, that’s not the way to go about doing so. If it was in reaction to a perceived animosity or judgmental tone in my post, it wasn’t intended and I’d really appreciate it if you’d just say so so I can clarify and/or apologize.
No problem. Happy to do it.
Quite well.
No.
Since both of these are based on a false premise, there is no answer I can provide.
A great deal. In hindsight, I am not convinced I was a worthless, incompetent troglodyte as a child, my positions and feelings have remained relatively constant over the years, and the same questions I’ve had since that age about the structure of consent laws have still not been answered in a satisfactory way (because, as I’ve learned since, the justification and reasoned explanation I’d been looking for doesn’t exist).
After all the years of “you’ll understand when you’re older”, now that I’m older, I feel quite confident that I’ve given them more than enough time to produce this mythical age-based understanding. Since it hasn’t been forthcoming, I’m back to using logic and reason like I did when I was ten.
I’m sorry, but that really isn’t significantly different. You’re still shifting the problem to the thoughts instead of the actions. Again the exact same thing could be either moral or immoral depending on what I happen to be thinking at the time. I simply cannot accept this standard, since it’s still thought-crime.
Also, does your mind actually work that way? Do you only ever have a single motivation for any given action you take? In my experience a massive mess of motivations and thoughts swirl around all the time related to any given action I might be taking at a given time. It’s impossible to pare them down to a single motivation at any given time.
(Reader’s Digest version: Wanting to play with her doesn’t preclude the possibility that I also find her sexy.)
Seems to me the attacks that really bothered you weren’t so much me attacking or distorting what you said, but rather what you chose (for some unfathomable reason) to leave unsaid. I refuse to debate with you if you are going to force me to guess what your points are. It will get neither of us anywhere to do this.
Clearly you are making some sort of judgment, but since you flatly refuse to say what that judgment is, I either have to fill in the blanks myself (which you will then claim I am “distorting” your position), or I have to leave your implicit accusation unchallenged, which is also not acceptable. I chose the lesser of two evils and don’t apologize for doing so.
Once again, please state clearly what it is you are afraid of if I do violate your taboo.
I’ve found that letting attacks and insinuations go unchallenged tends to get them treated as accepted implicit assumptions by the debaters and the audience. It poisons the entire debate process, and the only solution is to call the insinuations and assumptions out into the open as soon as they’re put forward so they can be dealt with openly. Letting your thought-crime paradigm stand unchallenged would change no one’s mind.
I’m not interested in being tolerated or in being viewed as personally “acceptable”. I’m interested in the core principles of this debate being dealt with, whatever that means for anyone’s opinion of me.
I trust I’ve been sufficiently clear now?
It goes from being a thought when you take the action. There are two ways we monitor our behavior: by the response it gets from other people and by our intentions when we take a certain action. I am simply suggesting that you make use of both in evaluating the appropriateness/potential harm of your actions.
I don’t really understand what you think I’m leaving out of my sentences. The consequences for the kid in question or the consequences for how you would need to modify your behavior? Leering at/flirting with kids (for example) doesn’t need to lead to rape to be inappropriate. It’s inappropriate in and of itself, and makes you someone who interacts inappropriately with kids, not a monster.
I agree, being taller doesn’t make you an authority figure. Being an adult makes you an authority figure. And power shouldn’t be used to coerce or manipulate in any sexual relationship, regardless of the ages of the participants.
I think sex should be something that develops naturally and gradually. Adults initiating sexual relationships with children disrupts that, and is selfish. Sure it feels good, but your motivation is to sexually satisfy yourself. Don’t rationalize that you’d be introducing kids to the joys of physical pleasure. Just let them get there at their own internally motivated pace. That’s the only way to really ensure that they’re emotionally ready for whatever level of sexual interaction they engage in.
And sex is a need for many (maybe most) adults and should be joyful and fulfilling, and given our tendency to associate it with shame (which I think stems from both culture and an instinct we possess to keep it private and therefore intimate) it is so easy to screw people up about sex. I think that makes it important that we try to preserve the natural progression kids make towards being sexually active (while still educating them about possible consequences and risk of disease and such but in a non-intimate/non-sexual context) rather than risk making miscalculations in introducing it prematurely and risk robbing them of some of the emotional pleasures of it.
But the action isn’t where you’re claiming there’s a problem.
Have I developed psychic powers no one bothered to tell me about? How exactly are my thoughts going to influence the degree of harm an otherwise identical action would do?
You’ve neglected to show where “someone who interacts inappropriately”, a trite phrase without any self-contained meaning, is something I should despirately want to avoid being.
Is there any particular reason you like this arrangement where any random stranger is automatically an authority figure? Seems to me that’s a social standard we should be working against anyway.
Ah, so it’s about consciously using that power rather than just passively having it. Good. Far better thought-out than I was originally assuming.
And how does children initiating sexual relationships with adults fit into this worldview of yours?
I seem to recall you accusing me of putting words in your mouth. Where the HELL did I ever say anything that could possibly be misinterpreted as THIS?
And if their own pace involves them furiously working to undo my belt buckle? Saying you believe in letting them move at their own pace is all well and good until you’re confronted with what you would have to allow if you actually stood by that standard. So what’s it to be? Is it really their own pace you believe in them moving at, or is it the pace you would chose for them to move at?
We do not have the same definition of “need”. If I have a need, food for example, I am morally justified in fighting or even killing in order to obtain it when it isn’t otherwise available. Sex doesn’t meet that standard. No matter how long a dry spell you have, you aren’t justified in committing a rape.
Was there any debate on this point?
I don’t buy your “shame isn’t a cultural artifact” premise. Modern people have spent far too much time and effort to force shame down the throats of people for it to be a natural phenomenon. You don’t need to go through that much effort if it’s the natural order of things. Further, if it were a natural phenomenon, it would be consistent throughout all human cultures. It isn’t. Many cultures throughout history and across the globe have radically different sexual customs, not all of them possessing this modern, western anti-sex shame you seem to be assuming is a universal law of nature.
And only introducing it early can cause problems? You think it’s impossible to cause problems by denying and repressing it well past the point where they would otherwise be actively engaging in it?
It almost seems, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you think that we should repress sexuality in young people for as long as we possibly can, relenting only when the explosion of adolescent hormones makes it an absolute impossibility to shame and suppress out of existence anymore.
Also, exactly what emotional pleasures are you refering to that are absolutely unattainable if you have sex before some arbitrary date?
Well, I don’t know if it’s that absolute, but what is the harm in waiting? I mean, I don’t think there is any one line in the sand, but I think most people would agree that ten year olds shouldn’t have sex. I think sixteen or seventeen is a pretty good estimate. If I met someone that young and I genuinely was attracted, I think I’d just wait to be on the safe side. There could be harm in doing it right away and there’s no harm in me saying, “No thanks.”
I’m not choosing to leave anything unsaid. You’re reading implications about you being a monster or actions being horrible that honestly aren’t there. I don’t think your sexual attractions make you bad, and I find your honesty and morality very admirable.
And yeah, we all contend with multiple motivations and feelings. But if I go up and talk to a guy because I’m really sexually attracted to him, fulfilling my sexual desires is my primary motivation, even if I also just enjoy talking to him. If I know that it would make him really uncomfortable to get a sexual vibe from me, I shouldn’t go talk to him because I might not be aware that I’m inadvertently being sexual despite trying not to. Not because he’s at risk of being raped by me, but because it would make him uncomfortable, and I don’t want to make him uncomfortable. All the more so if he’s an eight year old, because unlike adults, he probably doesn’t possess the skills and experience to deal with the situation rationally and in a way that emotionally protects himself.
I also am not perfect in my self-control or in always thinking things through completely in the limited time I have to come up with responses or actions in real time, and if I go and talk to him anyway, I might not be able to help flirting a little with him, which would make him uncomfortable and make me feel bad.
I know kids aren’t all that fragile and that makes it a kind of dumb example and a dumb concern. But I don’t know if that one kid is maybe that vulnerable and there’s no downside to me simply choosing not to interact with him. It also makes for a handy line to draw in the sand that I can practice for using on the fly - if my motivation is primarily sexual, don’t act on my desire to interact with him, or if my relationship with the kid means that I need to interact with him, do so as little as I need to.
I should not have put it as a matter of should or should not as I did earlier, and like I said, I know I went too far in my initial response. My knee-jerk reaction was influenced by the cultural belief about the fragility of children and the demonizing of pedophilia before I thought things through logically, and I apologize again. It’s just a suggestion, because I don’t want little kids to be made unduly uncomfortable and I don’t want you to do something you might in retrospect feel a bit bad about doing. I imagine our culture does a pretty good job of that all on its own. That’s all.
Does that make things a little clearer?
I thought I saw you use the argument that sex is pleasurable and therefore adults introducing children to it is ok. I apologize if I was wrong.
Have you ever had a child furiously try to undo your belt buckle? How old was this kid? Again, I’m not a child psychologist so correct me if I’m wrong, but that would seem to me to not be normal emotionally healthy child behavior.
Regarding my desire to repress sexuality - yeah, you’re wrong. Glad we got that cleared up.
Sex is usually something we desire when we feel close to someone and it is a bonding activity, and somewhat uniquely intimate. It makes you very emotionally vulnerable (edit - it can do so) to your partner, and it takes practice to balance how vulnerable you can make yourself to other people and still be okay if they hurt you. It also takes experience to learn how to read other people’s feelings and intentions, which influences how you interact with them emotionally. Kids don’t tend to be great at evaluating and modulating their emotions and knowing what they can handle, as I understand it.
You might not be able to see it, but your responses are quite combative. My body doesn’t react to adrenaline well - I get overly tachycardic (rapid heart rate) and shaky just from being in this kind of, well, fight rather than just angered and juiced up, so I need to walk away from this thread. If you want to take that as evidence of my fear or whatever about the subject, that’s incorrect and therefore unfortunate, but I’m just going to have to live with that. If I can, I’ll come back tomorrow and respond to your reactions to what I’ve written.
Yeah, I’d assume they were maybe molested and were trying to imitate something they’d seen. And I know sometimes kids will try to test boundaries, flirt, etc., but that it’s our job as adults to be the ones with self control and NOT act on things like that.
Freudian slit- check your private messages.
No, we don’t. We don’t need to prove anything. Your playbook consists of picking apart a whole post, throwing someone else’s work as a cite, and dismissing the things you don’t understand.
I’ve demonstrated that people have different motivations at different ages. That they aren’t all at the same developmental place at the same developmental times.
Stated more simply (keep up, I think you can…see, there’s a personal jab. You do that too.)
Children are not ‘small adults’. Everything about them is a state of growth. Physically, mentally, emotionally, the ACT of childhood is one of development.
You ask for a standard metric, and I’m not sure one exists, but that doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying. Just like statements I’ve made about parenthood sail right over your head. You set a few logical landmines:
Totally missing the point of my statements. Developmentally, a six year old does not have the ability to drive a car, to deep fry food, to perform brain surgery, to lead a nation.
Why is it so hard for you to conceive they may not be able to parse a healthy sexual relationship?
You ask me for specifics, it’s your default debating position. I cannot and will not give you one. Mostly because the range you’re interested in is too far down the developmental scale. The point where kids are able to handle a sexual relationship is somewhere in their teens. You want a mathematical formula, well, I’d say it was sometime after their first nocturnal emission. Not 10.
And even if there’s documented proof that some 9 year old somewhere has had one, it doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying, no matter HOW many times you say so.
Ferchissakes, you compare us to the Bonobo, simply because they’re a sexual animal. Will you tell me next that their DNA is 99.9% the same as ours? Will you tell me that I’ve got a god complex because I have the nerve to say we’re ‘better’ or ‘smarter’ or ‘more advanced’ than a primate?
You casually dodge my question of parenthood. But I’ll repeat it:
Raising a child is the single experience that would convince you your statements, while correct from a debate camp and note card standpoint, are logically invalid.
Can you look at the following and understand, even if it doesn’t follow what you’d like?
It’s relevant in that one day, a child is incapable of doing something. Developmentally unprepared. And the next they’re not.
bike riding = sex.
Get it? Or is that too tough a mental construct for you to wrap your head around*
See, that’s a debate with a hot jab at the end. It’s doesn’t further the conversation, and I’d appreciate it if you left it our of the debate that continues.
Yeah, I got it. I just wasn’t really sure how to respond to that.
**Cesario’s **attempts to rationalize, normalize and justify his self admitted pedophilia are merely symptomatic of the denial in which many pedophiles immerse themselves.
There are hundreds of readings available that can dispel his delusional thinking… available with a simple google of “psychology of pedophiles”, i.e. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1420331?pageNumber=1
There are thousands of readings on Growth and Development 0-10 that will explain a child as a child. Pedophiles are known to blame the child, assign flirtations and other behaviors misinterpreted as sexual, to children when the child was simply looking for adult approval, or extra pudding or anything else for any number of reasons… sexuality not included.
I post these as resources so that those who try to engage in enlightened discussion with Cesario can see that it is a task best left to a clinician. If you have the credentials… go for it.
I’ve read that–the stuff about pedophiles and rapists in general trying to justify their desires. But only in textbooks. It’s a little weird actually seeing it.
Wow. Thanks for the link, LunaticFringette.
I’m sorry to be paranoid, but since Freudian Slit was responding to my post, is the problem that you want me to stop posting or otherwise modify my behavior in some way? Because if so, a PM to me would accomplish that goal much more effectively.