I babysat a child who enjoyed rubbing up against me, rhymthically thrusting her pelvis against me while grunting and moaning, fondling my breasts and buttocks etc. When I’d slap her hands away and scold her she’d giggle and say “sorry!” with a big grin, but the behaviour continued to escalate. When I talked to her mother about I discovered she was not only aware of what was going on but found it to be a non-issue. “We don’t want her growing up with any hang-ups about her body”, she explained. When I said that we were talking about my body and that her daughter needed to understand and respect the fact that it’s not okay to entertain herself by pawing at me against my wishes, she chalked up my discomfort to my repression and hang-ups. “She’s not doing it in a sexual way!” was her indignant response. “She’s just joking around!”
I have no idea why this girl was doing these things. Perhaps she was acting out scenarios she learned while being molested; perhaps she simply had no concept of boundaries thanks to permissive parenting; perhaps she was a fully mature lesbian seeking a mutual gratifying sexual relationship with me. All I know is that she was 10 years old and liked humping me like an animal, and it made me extremely uncomfortable. The day she thrust her hand into my lap and start rubbing my genitals I knew my days of babysitting her were over.
Her mom raised her daughter to be a pedophile’s dream come true.
You said this a while ago. And I just wanted to say that I don’t think it always is either/or. So much of sexual abuse isn’t just raping kids–it’s doing stuff that is very ambiguous. I know a lot of people that I’ve met have talked about having a creepy uncle or skeevy family friend who may not have done anything, but you always felt weird around him because there’s just something kind of off there. I don’t know. It’s not something I’ve experienced but apparently it’s common enough.
I don’t think it involved you. It was just about why he did this thread. I don’t know why he just sent it to me, though.
I see my friend’s kids playing with their junk all the time (age 3-5). It has to suck for the parents. I suppose there must be a gentle way to explain that that is private, like picking your nose.
I doubt it. As long as it is treated as private rather than shameful and wrong, I don’t think the kid would be scarred at all. (In fact, given that children can be cruel to one another, teaching your kid to make that private might *prevent *them from being scarred by teasing/humiliation at the hands (sorry) of their peers.)
My question for you is this. Have you ever actually had a conversation about this with an actual victim of child sexual abuse? How would you respond if they told you that they would have passed your competency test with flying colors, but their academic ability to answer some questions on a test actually did not translate to the emotional maturity required to apply these principles in a real world context? And what if they told you that while they certainly acknowledge the damaging impact of the social context of the abuse, a huge part of the trauma was experienced beyond any capacity for rational thought and in no social context whatsoever?
You seem to have gone to great lengths to compile information on child development. Do you know anything about sexual trauma?
Yes, it’s problematic, but that doesn’t imply that the behaviors are equally immoral nor that they have to be solved the same way. For adults, the solution to sexual manipulation is for them to deal with it on their own. For children, the solution is to protect them from these situations long enough for them to deal with the situation on their own.
It’s really not that big a deal. When it’s used to train kids to do what is good and safe for them, it’s called “parenting skill”, and it’s successfully employed by millions to raise children. The same skills are employed by pedophiles for their own selfish, nefarious ends.
Whenever they inevitably have an episode of a Detective show set in a TV/movie studio, there always seems to be actors dressed up as vikings/pirates/vampires walking around in the background, and a hell of a lot of props people carrying trees.
I suspect these things are rarer at a real TV studio.
What’s the harm in waiting until you’re 40? 50? 90? What’s the harm in that?
And I care about an appeal to majority fallacy why?
Based on…?
You and I define harm differently. You don’t think that someone is harmed by being denied legitimately deserved rights. I do. While I believe that the harm they would suffer in secondary effects from what society would do to them outweighs the harm done by arbitrarily disregarding their right of self-determination in cases of fully informed, mutually desired activities, I am not blind to the fact that it is harming them.
Let me try to be clearer, since we’re obviously running into a communication problem.
You are giving me a littany of things I should not do, yes? Now, when you tell someone they shouldn’t do something, there is generally a reason, or consequence that you are trying to ensure doesn’t happen.
I’m trying to find out what exactly you think is going to result from me doing these things you’re telling me I shouldn’t do. You’ve denied that this is some thinly disguised slippery slope argument leading to me molesting a child, and you’ve claimed that my thoughts aren’t the intrinsic problem, so what is the problem you’re trying to prevent?
So this is what your issue is? You’re afraid I’m going to make someone uncomfortable? The problem with this theory is that the people I’m going to make uncomfortable by interacting with them aren’t generally the kids.
I should also point out that in general, I’m okay with making people uncomfortable. It doesn’t seem like that horrific a tragedy if someone feels uncomfortable, and certainly not a good enough reason to cloister myself away from the world.
Eh, it happens.
Of course there’s a downside. Human beings are social creatures. There’s a reason that banishment and shunning are criminal punishments in some societies.
It needs to point out that kids (even more so than adults) are generally quite capable of walking away from people they find uncomfortable and of expressing their discomfort. They only stick it out with people that make them uncomfortable without saying something if their parents or some other authority figure is forcing them.
Not seeking out interaction, I can see as reasonable, but shunning the poor kid just because you’ve got a hangup? The kid’s going to wonder if he’s done something wrong. “Why doesn’t he like me?”
Yes, that makes it much clearer, thank you. Apology accepted. I hope we can now move on to a more fruitful conversation.
I’ve seen others use it in the past, but I’ve never bought into that argument, much less used it myself. If I’ve said something that could be misinterpreted as that, I apologize, though I’d really like to see what I’ve said that led you to this conclusion.
It’s a hypothetical. Not a situation I’ve personally ever been in, but one that merrits consideration if you’re going to talk about throttling things to their pace. Once you decide on that, you don’t actually get to dictate what that pace turns out to be. That was essentially my point.
While that’s good to hear, your dates, times, and ages all line up with that interpretation. “Prevent them from doing anything until we’re no longer able to stop them.” It may not be what you’re going for, but it is the same basic result. Sexual desires and behaviors are something human beings are born with. Fetuses have been observed masturbating in the womb. The reason you don’t get so much sexual behavior in younger children has to do with shaming, segregation, and socialization more than anything intrinsic.
I don’t see how someone gains experience or practice by being locked in a featureless box for eighteen years, but that meets our current standards. We don’t currently require any experience or practice whatsoever. My suggestion with the RMSC was to change that so we would require some demonstrated ability in that area, but so far people here seem to have summarily rejected it as a ploy to legally molest children.
I also should point out that it’s kind of hard to get experience when you’re legally barred from doing what you’re supposed to be getting experience in. All you do by putting an age limit on it is delaying the learning process rather than bypassing it. (Similar to what we do with driving, and why people constantly complain about teenage drivers.)
I tend to debate in a reactive rather than proactive manner. As a result, I tend to mirror what I’m reading. As a result, I don’t tend to be very good at de-escalation. And of course, this subject matter causes tempers to flare, so I’m usually mirroring some initial hostility that perpetuates that mood longer than strictly necessary.
I’m sorry to hear about that. I can’t imagine how difficult that must be.
I don’t take that as anything other than what you claimed it was. I think that between this and your previous post, a lot of what we disagreed on has been clarified if not completely resolved.
There’s nothing cowardly about taking a deep breath and walking away for a while. There’s something cowardly about throwing a parting shot and storming off in a huff, but I don’t think that’s what you’ve done here, and I hope when you do stop back by and read this, you’ll find the same thing I have. That our differences are fewer for having had this conversation, hackle-raising a it was.
And? Usually when I see that line people use “or”.
This would seem far more intuitive and reasonable if we could get a clear study indicating that sexual activity is intrinsically harmful before some arbitrary age has been reached. Certainly there are nonintrinsic threats, the aformentioned social issues in a sex-negative society, but to declare that it is out and out required regardless of social context like you seem to be doing here I’m going to require some actual argument.
Yes, that’s true. You don’t need to prove anything. Not unless you want people to treat your argument as more than you spouting out your own ignorant preconceived notions, that is. If you’re happy with being treated that way, you don’t have to prove a thing.
People have accused me of ignoring pieces of their argument in the past. As a result, I’ve taken to responding to them piece by piece.
You’d rather I throw out random personal experience that applies to no one but myself? What do you want instead of supporting citations?
What have I dismissed that, in your mind, I’ve failed to understand? Do you have any examples?
You’ve done nothing of the sort. Every one of those lines you threw out can apply to anyone at any age. (Barring credit ratings only because it is illegal for minors to own property.) Do you not realize that there are adult comic book enthusiasts, sports fans, and socialites?
It does, however, look incredibly ironic if you do it right after missing a painfully obvious point.
Who claimed they were?
Because we all know that adults are intrinsically static creatures incapable of growth, learning, or change of any sort. Oh wait…
Then there is ZERO justification for putting up arbitrary age lines. If you can’t determine when one person is “ready” for something, how can you possibly claim to generalize that information you don’t have to the entire human population?
How can it not invalidate what you are saying when you claim that knowing what you claim to know is impossible?
So your point wasn’t a jab at my qualifications by implicitly claiming that because I wasn’t a parent I couldn’t possibly know a damn thing about children, how they think, how they behave, or how they respond in various situations? That I would agree with you about their intrinsic incompetence if only I were a parent? That wasn’t your point?
Developmentally? What do you mean by that? Everything you have on that list isn’t a developmental issue at all. They’re all educational issues. A six year old doesn’t have the ability to drive a car because they’ve never been taught to drive a car. A six year old doesn’t have the ability to deep fry food because they’ve never been taught how to deep fry food. A six year old doesn’t have the ability to perform brain surgery because they’ve never been taught how to perform brain surgery.
Take an equally ignorant adult and you’ll find they’re equally incompetent at these tasks. Likely more incompetent since the plasticity of a child’s brain makes it easier to pick up new tasks more quickly.
Why in the world would you think I don’t recognize that they may not be able to parse a healthy sexual relationship? Of course they may not be able to parse a healthy sexual relationship. An adult may not be able to parse a healthy sexual relationship either. What do you think the RMSC was about?
It’s only my “default debating position” because the default debating position of my oposition (you) is to try to hide their arguments behind a wall of obfuscation, implications, and generalizations in order to make informed, reasoned debate impossible.
Like I said.
Again, why the hell do you assume this has anything whatsoever to do with my specific interests?
Okay. What is your justification for this position? Why is a wet dream a pre-requisite for understanding and enjoying consensual sex?
It kind of does invalidate it. If you put forward a standard, and then claim that no one under a certain age can possibly apply, one or the other statement is invalidated by someone meeting that standard below that age. That’s how logic works.
I certainly don’t use the bonobo because they’re a sexual animal, but rather because they are the closest surviving genetic relative to homo sapiens. And of course, I only even mention them because someone decided to do something stupid and invoke a naturalistic fallacy.
Are you going to say that?
You don’t seem to understand logic. Something can be logically valid and false, just as something can be logically invalid and still be true. What matters to logic is that the conclusion follows deterministically from the premises. If all the premises being true would mean it was impossible for the conclusion to be false, an argument is logically valid. The conclusion can still be false if one or more of the premises doesn’t turn out to be true, but the argument remains valid. Additional information cannot make a logically valid argument invalid.
And you know how we know when that day has come? We test them. Sure, we don’t sit them down in front of a piece of paper, but we test them all the same. They pass that test by riding the bike. We don’t just forbid them from trying to ride a bike until they pass a certain aribtrary age where we assume they’ll be developmentally capable of grasping it.
Also of note, they practice riding the bike before they actually figure it out. It’s not so much “development” that changes over that day, but that the accumulated practice they’ve put in finally coalesses into an actual skill.
So why do we let them ride bikes?
If you want it to be left out, why are you perpetuating it? Why not just get this all dealt with the first time you brought it up instead of peppering them throughout your post?
You did notice that your own source explained that its research was primarily on child molesters, and stated in its first page that the research pool was taken almost exclusively from criminal samples and lamented the problem that child molesters aren’t necessarily pedophiles?
I imagine it would be weird seeing it. What rapists are you interacting with that are engaging in this sort of justification?
Seems to me you were the one being molested, but as the adult in this situation, you would be the one legally subject to penalties. Have you turned yourself in?
Either you’ve been sexually abused or you haven’t. If it’s too subtle for you to notice, it’s not there.
And why does this say “he’s sexually abusing them” to you, instead of what it’s actually saying, “he’s creeping people out but not doing a damn thing wrong”?
Are you guys meeting offsite, or is there a thread I’ve missed where this is happening?
No more than telling them they have to wear clothes even in warm weather scars them. At least, if you treat it in the same way, instead of slapping their hands and telling them they’re bad for doing it like some people do.
Agreed.
Pretty much the same reason my response to PotLuck’s situation (should I ever end up in it) would be to explain that people find that behavior inappropriate in someone under [insert local age of consent here], and refuse their advances as sternly as is required. I may not buy into the intrinsic harm hypothesis (due to lack of evidence) but I am fully convinced of the social harm involved.
Quite a few, actually. They tend to be more likely to frequent threads like this than you might otherwise assume. The most common explanation they give is that they think that talking to me might give them some insight into what happened to them.
I’m not sure if it has, since the likelihood is that their abuser doesn’t think like I do, but I do hope it’s given them some broader prospective. Sort of like a rape victim who’s turned misandrist having a chance to get over that after talking to normal, non-rapist men.
I’d ask them what this “emtional maturity” thing they’re talking about is, and how you can measure it so I could integrate it into the RMSC. I’d ask how it differs from items 2, 3, and 4 already on the RMSC which have nothing to do with rote knowledge and memorization.
I’d find that perfectly reasonable, because most molestation victims aren’t victims simply because they are designated so by an arbitrary age line. What happened to them would generally still be classified as a rape even if they had been an adult at the time it happened, and we can all agree, I think, that rape is an intrinsicly traumatic event.
I would be dubious if they claimed it would have been perfectly okay if their birthday had been slightly earlier and everything else had been exactly the same, however.
More than I’d like to, actually. For someone who is not a rapist and has no interest in becoming one, I’ve found myself learning a disturbingly large ammount about the phenomenon.
Respectfully, fuck that.
I’m not about to tollerate abuse just because the victim or perpetrator happens to be an acceptable target.
Well, since you’re acknowledging that I have said skills (since I’m apparently using them for my own selfish, nefarious ends), here’s a hint as to what those skills involve. Treat them like human beings. Give them reasons and actual choices. When the consequences aren’t too high let them make mistakes and help them deal with the consequences after the fact.
Of course I did… and did you notice that it was further stated that in spite of the issues you mention above, that “current research does reveal sufficiently consistent patterns to provide a basic overview of common psychological features associated with pedophilia”? And there was no lamenting, just a statement void of lament, sorrow or other emotion.
I also referred to hundreds of readings available and provided this one article as an example “i.e.” of the complexity of pedophilia for those posters who may not have been aware of that complexity. For this reason I will not engage in a point by point disection of this or any other article or research with you… take it up with the researchers themselves.
My thesis is this:
The current intent of the laws and social mores of our Western Society, for better or worse, are designed to protect our children. If you don’t agree with the age of consent, that’s one thing. But the age of consent is there, nominally, to protect the young.
For the sake of argument, there are people that wish harm on those that cannot fend for themselves. In this case, children, by people in superior positions. It could just as easily be the infirm protected from assault, or consumers being protected from ponzi schemes.
I realize that pederasty has been socially acceptable in the past (Pederasty - Wikipedia) but in this society, today, it’s not.
Further, your debate skills aren’t convincing people to change those views. IF you want things to change, you have to convince people it’s the ‘right thing to do’.
Wether or not you agree with these statements, the reality is: It’s illegal, and it will get you in a world of hurt if caught.
Just be warned that parents are kinda parental, and have been known to be pretty protective of their offspring, regardless of how noble your intent.
Why in the world did you think I was after a point-by-point dissection? All I was doing here was demonstrating that your article makes it clear from the get-go that its patterns are refering to child molesters, which the author treats as identical to child molesters without any real backing for that point.
Actually, if you go back to the arguments made when they were actually passing these laws, you’ll find a serious derth of consideration on the subject of protecting the young. A lot of discussion about the drop in the bride-price of nonvirgin girls, and a lot of worrying that women being allowed out of the home and into the workplace means it’s more likely they’ll gasp want to have sex with people who don’t intend to marry them, but not a whole lot about protecting the young. Indeed, the only argument I’ve been able to find about protecting anyone is a lovely historical note about the fact that at the time the laws were passed “consent” essentially meant that if you stopped struggling partway through the rape for any reason other than total exhaustion, it was consensual. Now me, I’d have probably amended that law instead of just slapping an age limit on it and calling it a day, but that’s me.
So we should make it illegal for the elderly to have sex, right? Surely that will protect them from rape! After all, they have a harder time fighting off attackers, they tend to have people in positions of authority over them, they often have their medical decisions overruled, and most importantly, no one wants to see that. How about that plan?
Was this some sort of preemptive argument? While it does demonstrate in a lovely fashion that the sky won’t fall and society won’t collapse if young people are allowed to have sex, I’m not sure anyone was being quite alarmist enough to warrant that. Ah well, at least it’s out of the way now.
Wrong. That’d be a nice next step, but right now, I’m firmly in the part of the debate where I attack the preexisting assumptions about the situation that people leave unsaid, and demonstrate that there are a lot of things that we oughtn’t just accept “because”.
Because of your posting style in this thread.
Granted, “current research reveals” does not provide much backing unless it’s buried in the bibliography and it’s not obvious to me. Pedophilic inclinations tend not be self reported because of the legal implications, so research may never have a “pure” sample of pedophiles and this may be as close as they can get… and they don’t treat pedophiles “identical to child molesters” as you state. (At least that’s what I think you meant to state) They refer to consistent patterns which provide a basic overview of psychological commonalities, which does not imply identical.
Back to my more general point… there is research data out there for posters to read and evaluate if they so choose.
Wha? How do you take a general desctiption of the legal system and bend it to rape?
See HERE’S another example of your misunderstanding. You’re so wrapped up in a competitive debate that you cannot fathom me showing a situation where your desired goals were met. My statement followed that in this society now, that is not the case.
50 years ago, we might have been debating the relative merits of race, 25 years ago, we’d be debating homosexuality. But Is suspect social acceptance of sex with children under the age of consent will be a tough row to hoe.
Keep in mind, the fast majority of the United States is populated by less open minded folk. If you can’t convince us…
It’s no worse than you using Misleading Vivedness and ad hominem attacks. We could also debate the burden of proof. In fact, your twisting my statement that laws protect the elderly (with you stating they shouldn’t have sex to protect them from rape would be a Fallacy of false dilemma.)
I suspect I’m gonna go into lurk mode. Think what you will of the silence.
Your understanding of the legal system is tragically flawed here. There are no legal penalties for refusing to be felt up by a handsy ten year old and then reporting her behaviour to her parents so no, Cesario, I didn’t turn myself in because I’d done nothing wrong. In fact, deciding “Yay, she wants me!” would be the unlawful action. Know this.
And my point was to remind everyone that the honest researcher describes the limitations of their methodology, and hedges their statements appropriately. That’s what the section I was referring to was all about.
Are you suggesting that the legal system doesn’t apply to rape?
And why should you assume this will be any tougher than the previous ones? I mean you just provided historical context for it existing before, so it’s obviously not biologically anathema to humanity.
Either way, however difficult the road, it’s one worth walking.
Don’t strain yourself. Wouldn’t want you to pull a muscle patting yourself on the back for your “openmindedness”.
Fact of the matter is, you and your ilk don’t concern me. There’s no point arguing with someone who doesn’t understand logic, applies fallacy after fallacy, and then decides that he’s oh so important that I must convince him or my goals are DOOOOOOMED. Fact of the matter is, you’re incidental. A sounding board to give me an excuse to present my arguments, and a convenient straw-man to knock down without needing to construct one myself.
I don’t expect anything I say will convince you of anything. I don’t accept your claims to majority, but if the majority really won’t be convinced by anything but violence, so be it.
Not familiar.
I don’t claim your arguments are bad because you’re an idiot. I claim you’re an idiot because your arguments are bad. If I’d ignored some argument or dismissed it by questioning your intelligence or your character, that would be an ad hominum attack, but I addressed each, and only drew the conclusion on your intelligence and character after addressing your arguments.
Yes we could. I think that might be useful. Considering “I have the majority viewpoint” is not a valid argument that you don’t have the burdon of proof, and you’ve made some rather… interesting claims…
And what would you call the idea that children shouldn’t have sex to protect them from rape?
Goodbye.
Well, you’re female, and claim not to have enjoyed it, so you probably wouldn’t have been charged, but that doesn’t change the way the law is structured. Fact of the matter is you were felt up, and only stopped it after it had occurred. Sanity and rationality aren’t exactly hallmarks of this particular set of laws.
Charged for what, specifically? The way what law is structured?
And for the record I’m not a pedophile, so I’m not merely claiming to have not enjoyed being felt up by a child. I did not enjoy being felt up by a child. ETA: I wouldn’t enjoy being felt up by an adult, either. It’s gross.
