# Piers Anthony: Vile or Visionary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 29, 2001, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677 "2001-08-29T10:39:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/1 "2001-08-29T10:39:49Z")
[mournful lament] Oh, if only the board would allow smileys on thread titles… [/mournful lament] This is a continuance of a tangent spawned by the [“Bad, ‘guilty pleasures’ authors and the readers who buy their books”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83005&pagenumber=1) thread, which was enough off topic to merit taking the discussion somewhere else. It begins with [this post by **Fenris**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1534145#post1534145), and goes a bit between us from there. Nothing much to do with the OP, so I brought it over here to respond to his last post on it. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Fenris:** _\*\* > > The problem is that in books that I have read, Anthony’s narrators have a thing for little girl’s panties with a creepy Homer Simpson “mmmmmm…panties” tone.\*\* Well, there ARE people like that; for better or worse, they’re out there. Just as there are people who like _big_ girls’ panties (and evidently their male counterparts). > [@](#): > > \*\* The tone of the writing shows that the narrator enjoys (Yes, I can document this) having little boys and girls put into sexualized situations and watching them squirm.\*\* Again, there are people like this. I personally can’t for the life of me understand the attraction to squirming from discomfort or pain; but the enjoyment of pleasurable squirming is at least somewhat understandable (look how much fun it is with adults; some simply don’t see that big of a difference between the two). > [@](#): > > \*\* He provides no consequences to potential molesters.\*\* In Firefly the “official” molestor is jailed and killed, while the rest involved in Nymph’s abuse are not punished. > [@](#): > > \*\*In Heaven Cent, none of the women who try to molest the nine year old Prince Dolph (who doesn’t want to be molsested…that’s what makes it funny! Right? :rolleyes: ) suffers any consequences. None. \*\* Haven’t read it, so can’t comment on whether the author intended it to be “funny”, nor on the consequences to the characters. Presenting someone as being involuntarily molested doesn’t necessarily constitute advocacy of the practice, though. We put kids through all sorts of things they don’t want (measles shots, spankings, Sunday School, etc.). That doesn’t automatically make those things abusive by definition. > [@](#): > > **There’s an ongoing theme that if someone tries to molest you, no-one will help you and you shouldn’t talk about it, since no-one will care. And it’s really no big deal, anyway. Since the Xanth books are marketed at teens, I find this horrible.** Your horror is understandable, if that’s the message he’s trying to promote. Having not read the book, I can’t divine his intentions; but it strikes me as something that a lot of kids can at least _identify with_, as a lot of kids go through such experiences. **Maybe** he’s letting them know they’re not alone. > [@](#): > > **And in Firefly, even by your own description, an adult has sex with a FIVE YEAR OLD girl who has been raped by her brother. Therapy for rape-victims isn’t having sex with the “therapist”.** Nope, it certainly isn’t. Of course, Mad wasn’t a therapist. But a more important point is what _should_ constitute therapy for someone who has been raped? Presenting sex in a context where the victim has control, and can learn once again to accept the sex experience as a positive one? Sounds to me like that’s what he did. > [@](#): > > **And Anthony trots out all the famous molester’s excuses: “It helped her”, “She inititated it”, “It was consentual”. “She enjoyed it” He may be raising provokative points, but your description makes it sound like Anthony has read the molester’s handbook and decided to provide a defense of it, especially in light of his other books.** Well, one person’s “excuses” are often another person’s “reasons”. Whether it “helped” her or not isn’t made clear, but the other three conditions were well established. She _did_ initiate it, it _was_ consentual (at least between the two of them), and she _did_ enjoy it. We as a society want to take the position that none of those things should matter because the contact is disapproved of by US. Anthony seems to think that when we pass judgment, the facts should take precedence over our prejudices. Was Nymph _really_ being abused by Mad, or have we just decided to declare it so? And what effect does _that decision_ have on the child? We as a society, unfortunately, don’t seem to feel obligated to care, because we’re in charge so we don’t have to. Anthony thinks we owe it to our children to do so. I agree with him. > [@](#): > > **I’m firmly of the opinion that any sexual relationship between a FIVE year old and an adult is unhealthy since the five year old lacks the experience to make an informed choice and since the relationship is so unequal in power.** Many people feel that way, but I’m not convinced it’s a valid argument. You could say the same thing about taking your kids to a baseball game. Can they make an informed choice about that? No. Is the relationship equal in power? No. But no-one says that it’s unhealthy. The problem I have with this is that the reasoning applies to lots (if not most) situations between adults and children, but it’s almost always when the situation involves sex that this reasoning is held up as a justification for unilateral condemnation. I find that arbitrary and unjustified. > [@](#): > > **But we may be getting into GD territory here. 🙂** Yep, I think so. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/2 "2001-08-29T11:38:07Z")
> [@](#): > > The problem I have with this is that the reasoning applies to lots (if not most) situations between adults and children, but it’s almost always when the situation involves sex that this reasoning is held up as a justification for unilateral condemnation. I find that arbitrary and unjustified. Really? Even if Freud had never existed, most people recognize that the development of sexuality and a person’s response to it is a pretty hefty part of creating the human adult. I see nothing at all arbitrary in looking to ensure that children do not have unwanted sexual experiences. I am rather sure that people who have undergone premature sexual experiences do grow up to have a lot of problems as adults. Those experiences are hardly in the same league as being forced to go watch a game or a play or being forced to sit through church services. (Depending how the “forcing” is accomplished may affect other things in a child’s development, but I do not believe there is anything _arbitrary_ about dividing sexual experiences from other experiences when we are discussing children.) (I don’t have any comment on P.A. 'cause I gave up on Xanth after the third book.) ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/3 "2001-08-29T12:20:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dijon Warlock \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Again, there are people like this. I personally can’t for the life of me understand the attraction to squirming from discomfort or pain; but the enjoyment of pleasurable squirming is at least somewhat understandable (look how much fun it is with adults; some simply don’t see that big of a difference between the two).\*\* > > This isn’t happy squirming. In Vale of the Vole (the book prior to Heaven Cent, Esk, a 13(?) year old boy is terrorized by a “Demoness” (Anthony isn’t using the word in it’s normal meaning…think “Genie”) who’s thousands of years old and is trying to rape him. He’s so terrorized that he give up half his soul to try to get rid of her. There’s a rape/“seduction” scene where what’s being described is Esk being so terrified that he’s close to crying and the narrator chuckling over the kid’s raw terror. Y’know the scene in a number of westerns, where the grizzled old hands take the kid to the whorehouse and chuckle over his eager nervousness? _That’s_ precicely the tone that the narrator has, but in response to terrified, unwilling vicitims (that’s slightly overstated, but only a bit) > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Your horror is understandable, if that’s the message he’s trying to promote. Having not read the book, I can’t divine his intentions; but it strikes me as something that a lot of kids can at least _identify with_, as a lot of kids go through such experiences. **Maybe** he’s letting them know they’re not alone. > > \*\* > > And the “Other kids have gone through what you have, and survived” would be a great, healthy message, but again: the “Don’t bother to tell 'cause no-one’ll care or you’ll just get into trouble” part of the message (which, in your synopsis finition appears in Firefly as well) is (IMO) evil. > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, one person’s “excuses” are often another person’s “reasons”. Whether it “helped” her or not isn’t made clear, but the other three conditions were well established. She _did_ initiate it, it _was_ consentual (at least between the two of them), and she _did_ enjoy it. We as a society want to take the position that none of those things should matter because the contact is disapproved of by US. Anthony seems to think that when we pass judgment, the facts should take precedence over our prejudices. Was Nymph _really_ being abused by Mad, or have we just decided to declare it so? And what effect does _that decision_ have on the child? We as a society, unfortunately, don’t seem to feel obligated to care, because we’re in charge so we don’t have to. Anthony thinks we owe it to our children to do so. I agree with him.\*\* > > The problem is that Anthony has set up a non-real-world situation. I’ll conceede that somewhere there may be a rare 5 year old who is A)physically developed B)emotionally developed C)intelligent enough and D)experienced enough that she can make a good, safe, healthy decision to have sex with a 30 year old man, but those kids are so rare that we can’t make laws based on them. It’s more important to protect the 99.9999etc% of 5 year olds who _can’t_ make those choices. > > > [@](#): > > > > **I’m firmly of the opinion that any sexual relationship between a FIVE year old and an adult is unhealthy since the five year old lacks the experience to make an informed choice and since the relationship is so unequal in power.** > > Many people feel that way, but I’m not convinced it’s a valid argument. You could say the same thing about taking your kids to a baseball game. Can they make an informed choice about that? No. Is the relationship equal in power? No. But no-one says that it’s unhealthy. The problem I have with this is that the reasoning applies to lots (if not most) situations between adults and children, but it’s almost always when the situation involves sex that this reasoning is held up as a justification for unilateral condemnation. I find that arbitrary and unjustified. > \*\* But baseball games don’t have the lasting physical and psychological consequences that sex can have. You’ve actually got two discussions going on: “Piers Anthony: Pervert or Priest” 😉 and “Let’s reexamine our attitudes about Child Molsestation”. I’ll write more, later (work beckons). BTW: As always, **Dijon** , I’m enjoying talking with you. The last time I had a discussion regarding Anthony and his views on child-molestation, it started ugly and got worse. The tone of your post was refreshing (for this topic), and you made some good points! Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/4 "2001-08-29T17:49:18Z")
I haven’t read any Anthony in years (ever since I read a painfully, painfully bad novel of his by the name of “Killobyte” that I finished out of pure grudge–a sort of, by gob I’m going to finish this book, not vice versa) so I can’t contribute there. The direction the later Xanth books were taking (“later” at that point probably equalled number six or so at the utmost, it was a while back), I do remember thinking were getting more than a little odd with an increasingly prominent princess-panties theme. However, no question whatsoever that there are large numbers of people who are “a little odd” in various ways harmless to harmful. That phasing over into the latter brings towards this: > [@](#): > > Many people feel that way, but I’m not convinced it’s a valid argument. You could say the same thing about taking your kids to a baseball game. Can they make an informed choice about that? No. Is the relationship equal in power? No. But no-one says that it’s unhealthy. The problem I have with this is that the reasoning applies to lots (if not most) situations between adults and children, but it’s almost always when the situation involves sex that this reasoning is held up as a justification for unilateral condemnation. I find that arbitrary and unjustified. I might agree with arbitrary, but the unjustified…simply doesn’t sit right. Sexuality is a major component of humanity; people are sexual creatures. Children being people, they’re sexual creatures as well, _in their own way_. That italicized bit is very important, both because of its truth, and how easily the preceding clause can be heatedly misinterpreted in this day and age. Sexual experiences are also one of the most powerful mind-altering things possible that don’t involve the scrutiny of the DEA. There’s good reason that religions have had a love-hate relationship with it, from ritual sex to the other end of the axis with ritual celibacy. The latter may get codified as “law”, but I think that’s essentially just a dumbing-down for the masses; the reason for it was most likely originally mystical–it’s no coincidence that a lot of mystical writings are downright sexual in imagery. (Nope, I have no cites, simply my own thoughts on the matter.) In essence, it can be very powerful. And that power is something people grow into at their own pace. It is an adult responsibility to care for children; caring for them involves arranging a pattern of life around them that protects them from things that it’s not a good idea they handle. And certainly what kids can handle is in large part societally determined–I think adolescence is artificially lengthened to an unhealthy degree, for one thing. But just as there’s an emotional gap in development and capacity between most teens and adults, there is a much larger gap between the capcities of a prepubescent child and an adult. It’s a wider gap on some things than others; I don’t think it’s unjustified to say sexuality is one area where the gap is enormous; the difference between childhood sexuality and adult sexuality is huge. Forcing them together is, to put it lightly, irresponsible. “But little Sally didn’t want to go the baseball game either!” just doesn’t ring as a valid counter-argument. How much any of that touches on what Anthony wrote about, I’ve no idea. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/5 "2001-08-29T18:41:19Z")
either of the Xanth books in question. Perhaps **Fenris** could post a brief sample of th escenes in question. It is difficult to judge things like the author’s tone based upon a summary. I have read _Firefly_, though it was more than a decade ago. My recollection is that it was a novel of psychological horror and that assuming tha author’s sympathies lie unequivicolly with any single character or situation depicted is probably unsound. In particular, I read the scene in question as being designed to take what at face value would be a very black-and-white situation and inject it with tones of grey. At the time I read the book, I found that interpretation to have relevance to some of the themes of the novel as a whole. I never imagined that it represented a archetype of the author’s views on pedophilia. I also don’t think that Tom Harris is a proponent of cannibalism or that Anne Rice wants to be raped. ---
**Author:** ![Beadalin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Beadalin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beadalin)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/6 "2001-08-29T18:42:32Z")
As a pre-teen and teen, I was a big Piers Anthony fan. I read all Xanth books up to the point where I outgrew them, and read _Firefly_, the _Adept_ series and several of the other more adult books written by him. To me, this debate is analogous to the debates over whether _Huckleberry Finn_ is racist, or is a work commenting on racism. I assume that I fit the profile of the bulk of his readers: I started reading his books a year or two before adolescence and continued through most of high school. Adolesence, as goes without saying, is steeped in budding sexuality, and kids going through it are constantly adjusting and re-adjusting their thinking about things sexual. A lot of it is scary and threatening, and a lot of it delightful, and much of it titillating as hell. Anthony’s works are strictly and unambiguously fantasty, and as such offer a wonderful, safe venue to explore themes of sexuality for adolescent readers. When Esk is terrified of the demoness, the character’s terror is real, but it’s placed in a context of humor and wonder which make reading about the terror non-terrifying. I don’t think that kids reading about such intense situations need to be terrorized themselves. They need to be able to read the whole thing, make decisions about how they would handle such a situation, maybe make comparisons for themselves to real-life situations. By firmly placing the scene in the context of a quest in a wholly imaginary world, Anthony can let his readers keep a safe distance from something that might otherwise be overwhelming. Another key to this (for me, anyway) is that his characters always manage their own course through their worlds without guidance from parents or elders. They are treated as equal to any task or challenge set before them, and eventually they succeed. For kids who don’t feel they have guidance, or who are too embarrassed or stubborn or introverted to seek it, these books offer a chance to be an independent adventurer, even through sexual topics, which most adults are leery of discussing openly. The fascination with panties, etc. isn’t so much Anthony’s own fascination as his ability to identify with what young boys are intrigued by. He keeps it pretty innocent-- the characters who want to know the color of another girl’s panties aren’t after anything else. The panties alone are imbued with enough mystery and to know anything about them is exciting, just like the playground games of “Show me yours and I’ll show you mine” are exciting. I never really noticed that the antagonists or attackers in his stories never met with consequence for their actions, but in many ways that’s fitting. He’s speaking to his readers and putting them in a world where young people make their own decisions, strive to meet their own goals. In the real world, most of us don’t see our antagonists or attackers come to justice. I was picked on and harrassed for years, and to this day, as far as I know, nothing stopped those kids other than growing up. Teachers did nothing and I never met their parents. Every day, both kids and adults encounter jerks or downright terrible people, are hurt by them, and never see them “get theirs.” Yet we grow and survive and move on. So do the heroes on Anthony novels. _Firefly_ is most certainly aimed at an adult audience, as stated clearly on the cover, inside the jacket, in the introduction, by where it’s shelved in the library, etc. Children shouldn’t be reading it. When I read it several years ago, I didn’t know quite what to think of it. I thought it pretty obvious that he wrote the book to be erotica-- the story of Nymph was one of many fantasies including, but not limited to, a giant sexy amoeba, sentient trees, a man unable to achieve an erection, and others, all packaged around a story-telling format. Taken as nothing more than fantasy, Nymph’s story was disturbing and tragic, but not an invitation for molesters to clamor, “See! 5 year olds like it!” Rather, it’s a powerful invitation for us to examine our own sexuality and its roots, and discover _why_ we draw the lines of acceptable behavior and sympathy where we do. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/7 "2001-09-01T10:48:57Z")
**tomndebb:** > [@](#): > > \*Even if Freud had never existed, most people recognize that the development of sexuality and a person’s response to it is a pretty hefty part of creating the human adult. I see nothing at all arbitrary in looking to ensure that children do not have unwanted sexual experiences. \* Of course, it _is_ a large part of development, which is why it’s so important to ensure that we handle it properly. What I was referring to as arbitrary (which it isn’t entirely, but I feel is to a degree) is what oftentimes appears to be the singling out of matters sexual for unilateral ban (beneath a certain age) for reasons which also apply to other situations that are not similarly forbidden. The concept of “informed consent”, for example. Kids can’t give “informed consent” to hardly anything at all, but that argument is rarely brought up in contexts other than the sexual. They can’t give “informed consent” to ride in cars, for example; yet we don’t blink at parents who put them in the back seat, despite the thousands per year that die in auto accidents. No-one raises the argument that parents who would put their children in such _potential_ danger aren’t fit to make a decision on behalf of their child, yet if those same parents decide to raise their children in a sexually open household, this is precisely the argument used by society to overrule the parents’ decision. > [@](#): > > _I am rather sure that people who have undergone premature sexual experiences do grow up to have a lot of problems as adults._ I am rather sure of this, as well; but I can’t help wondering how much of those problems are caused by the clash of those experiences with society’s condemnation of them, rather than the experiences in and of themselves. I think this is part of what Anthony was trying to get people to think about (at least, so he said in Firefly). > [@](#): > > - Those experiences are hardly in the same league as being forced to go watch a game or a play or being forced to sit through church services.\* Certainly, we as adults see things that way; to children, it may not be that different. > [@](#): > > - (Depending how the “forcing” is accomplished may affect other things in a child’s development, but I do not believe there is anything arbitrary about dividing sexual experiences from other experiences when we are discussing children.)\* I don’t think it’s _entirely_ arbitrary, either (should’ve tossed a qualifier in the OP), but to me it seems less of a Totally Different Thing Altogether[sup]TM[/sup] than it does to other people. There seems (to me) to be an inordinate amount of the “because it’s (_whisper_) [sub][sup]S-E-X[/sup][/sub] (_whisper_)” thinking going around to justify more of a fundamental differentiation than actually seems to be there. Or _would_ be there if we didn’t insist on it. When that insistence that “it’s different, 'cause it’s sex” gets in the way of objectivity, we run the risk of making the situation worse rather than better. **Fenris:** > [@](#): > > _I’ll conceede that somewhere there may be a rare 5 year old who is A)physically developed B)emotionally developed C)intelligent enough and D)experienced enough that she can make a good, safe, healthy decision to have sex with a 30 year old man, but those kids are so rare that we can’t make laws based on them._ There may be, at that; and I’m with you on betting they’re extremely few and far between. However, I’m not certain how _necessary_ all those qualifications are to begin with. If we’re talking about the effect on the child (which is the area of my concern), whether they would qualify under **A)** would in large part depend on what kind of contact we’re talking about. Obviously, something like penetrative genital intercourse would be a bad idea, if not impossible (Anthony _does_ have Nymph and Mad engage in this; I’m wondering how much he knows about the physical limits of a 5 year old’s body, and not really sure I want to know how he found out :eek: ), but females are fully functional from an orgasmic standpoint from birth, and babies and small children are known to masturbate, so they are physically developed to that extent, at least. As for **B):**, certainly they’re emotionally less developed than adults, but because of that, they process things from a different context. It doesn’t take an adult to enjoy being tickled, which to a child may be all sex amounts to. **C):** Jerry Springer has convinced me that intelligence is not a requisite for a sexual relationship :rolleyes: (although it would be a very good idea :D). **D):** Probably not, but experience (and to a lesser extent, intelligence to make a decision) could be provided by the adult in the relationship (who would be the responsible party in the relationship, anyway). > [@](#): > > _It’s more important to protect the 99.9999etc% of 5 year olds who can’t make those choices._ I’m becoming convinced that this is where I will forever disagree with people (not necessarily a bad thing): the idea that the minority is justifiably sacrificed for the good of the majority. “If I ruled the world,” (Clodagh Rogers Trotsky, natch) I wouldn’t settle for anything less than protecting 100% of them. > [@](#): > > _But baseball games don’t have the lasting physical and psychological consequences that sex can have._ No, but car accidents do (as do lots of other things), and we don’t hesitate to put children in danger of those. > [@](#): > > _You’ve actually got two discussions going on: “Piers Anthony: Pervert or Priest” and “Let’s reexamine our attitudes about Child Molsestation”._ Well, he (at least in Firefly) was calling for the second, so they’re unavoidably intertwined. But I already did a [thread on the second](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41049) a while back. > [@](#): > > _BTW: As always, Dijon, I’m enjoying talking with you. The last time I had a discussion regarding Anthony and his views on child-molestation, it started ugly and got worse. The tone of your post was refreshing (for this topic), and you made some good points!_ Thank you, sir. I truly appreciate that. **Drastic:** \* > [@](#): > > I might agree with arbitrary, but the unjustified…simply doesn’t sit right.\* What I meant was that the arbitrariness that I perceive doesn’t seem justified. Not that concern over the issue is unjustified. There would be more, but I gotta scoot for now. What is here would have come sooner, too; but I don’t get to the boards every day. Came in last night, and gave myself some hours to digest and compose, and now my beverages are really wanting out. Thanks to everyone who stopped in so far. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/8 "2001-09-01T11:02:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beadalin \* > \*\* > {snip} > > \*\* Great post! Well written and very enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/9 "2001-09-03T00:44:31Z")
A couple more quick points, now that I’ve got some breathing space time-wise: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Drastic:** > > And certainly what kids can handle is in large part societally determined–I think adolescence is artificially lengthened to an unhealthy degree, for one thing.\* I agree totally; and in a situation like we have where kids are hitting puberty younger and younger, putting off preparing them for it as long as we can is just asking for trouble all around. It lengthens the period of their vulnerability, which is increasing the danger to them, not decreasing it. > [@](#): > > - But just as there’s an emotional gap in development and capacity between most teens and adults, there is a much larger gap between the capcities of a prepubescent child and an adult. It’s a wider gap on some things than others; I don’t think it’s unjustified to say sexuality is one area where the gap is enormous; the difference between childhood sexuality and adult sexuality is huge.\* No argument from me on this. But while I’ll agree the difference is huge, I’m not convinced that it’s so insurmountable that any resemblance to its acceptance must be unilaterally condemned, which is what we seem to do. > [@](#): > > _Forcing them together is, to put it lightly, irresponsible._ Certainly _forcing_ them together is wrong; but I’m not sure that allowing them to naturally converge is necessarily always the abomination we’re taught to believe. There’s something there that doesn’t ring as genuine to me; and given the damage that’s wrought by the enforcement of that mentality, to me it positively screams for re-evaluation. Anthony seems to be arguing along these lines, as well. > [@](#): > > _“But little Sally didn’t want to go the baseball game either!” just doesn’t ring as a valid counter-argument._ Well, that gets back to what I see as arbitrariness in the whole business. At times, the child’s unwillingness to participate is seen as an indicator (if not proof) of abuse, but at other times it’s considered irrelevant. Whether we consider something abusive rarely if ever consists of taking the child’s own response seriously…unless, of course, their response will bolster our own position. Then, their response is used to _justify_ our own position. That’s where I feel some of the arbitrariness lies. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Spiritus Mundi:** > > I also don’t think that Tom Harris is a proponent of cannibalism or that Anne Rice wants to be raped.\* Indeed, and I haven’t seen anyone calling the author of the Hannibal Lecter books creepy or suspecting closet tendencies of him just because of the characters he writes about; yet there’s a persistence of opinions of Anthony based on the characters he portrays. I wonder how Stephen King would stack up under that standard. 😃 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Epimetheus:** > > (To **Beadalin** ): Great post! Well written and very enlightening.\* Amen. That was a excellent post. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/10 "2001-09-03T00:45:42Z")
Tom Harris–Hannibal Lecter…okay, so it’s early for me. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/11 "2001-09-03T02:45:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Certainly _forcing_ them together is wrong; but I’m not sure that allowing them to naturally converge is necessarily always the abomination we’re taught to believe. There’s something there that doesn’t ring as genuine to me; and given the damage that’s wrought by the enforcement of that mentality, to me it positively screams for re-evaluation. Anthony seems to be arguing along these lines, as well. While I agree with most of that, I am not clear on how they would “naturally converge.” If sexual contact isn’t forced, it happens by mutual choices and acts of will, it doesn’t just happen. (“I dunno what happened, I was just walking along and bumped into her and next thing I knew…” is a bit of dialogue my brain offered up when writing that bit of the blindingly obvious.) Children can display sexual behavior at adults, and perhaps sometimes be rather overt in asking for it. That’s being precocious. A juvenile response is “woo hoo!” though there are others, perhaps involving exclamations about cooties and ewww. The _adult_ response to that is to decline, and I’m having difficulty seeing how anything other than that would ever be right. What kind of natural convergence makes not declining correct? > [@](#): > > Well, that gets back to what I see as arbitrariness in the whole business. At times, the child’s unwillingness to participate is seen as an indicator (if not proof) of abuse, but at other times it’s considered irrelevant. Whether we consider something abusive rarely if ever consists of taking the child’s own response seriously…unless, of course, their response will bolster our own position. Then, their response is used to _justify_ our own position. That’s where I feel some of the arbitrariness lies. Well, my feelings are outlined fairly clearly, I think–there’s a gulf between childhood sexuality and the adult variety. Bringing them together is irresponsible at best; the greater the degree that consent is violated in the course of it aggravates the initial wrong, but it isn’t the source of it. A child doesn’t consent to needles (I sure wouldn’t have, given the choice), but it isn’t irresponsible to immunize them. That’s my position regardless of whether the child is crying to avoid getting stuck, or is exceptional in agreeing cheerfully to it. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/12 "2001-09-03T10:48:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Drastic:** > > What kind of natural convergence makes not declining correct? \* In our current society and mindset: none, I think; but I’m not convinced that is the best we can do. If it happened in a context where such an relationship wasn’t unilaterally and automatically reviled and condemned, then other considerations could come into play, such as (in the event of the child acting “precocious” by inviting and/or requesting such attention) how will rejection of the child affect them versus accepting and returning their attention, and which is more harmful to them in the long run? We aren’t even allowed to make such an assessment, regardless of what results it would produce, and I think that’s a serious shortcoming in our position on the issue. The [scenario I condensed from Firefly](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1545213#post1545213) gives an example of what I would consider a “natural convergence”. Certainly the rules of society dictate that it was wrong of Mad, but his concern for Nymph’s well-being (and presumably his own disagreement with the Law on what constituted a valid partner) led to a situation where the two people involved had no objection to the activities engaged in. How often does that really happen, though? I’ve no idea. Probably a lot more than we as a society approve of, I’m guessing. Certainly I can see how age is a factor in such a relationship; but I’m not sure I’m convinced that it merits a unilateral ban. Mad didn’t hurt Nymph in any way; if anything, he gave her a larger (and more informative) perspective from which to understand what was happening to her. This, IMO, would be a good thing. Problem is, the social backlash from it is a bad thing. So what should take priority there, the well-being of a child or the mores of the legislature? That’s the question I have concerns with, for my conscience tells me the child _should_ take precedence, but from a personal safety standpoint, I can’t allow it to. I don’t like being in that position. > [@](#): > > _Well, my feelings are outlined fairly clearly, I think–there’s a gulf between childhood sexuality and the adult variety._ True, but I don’t see it as fundamentally unbridgable; if it were, people would never be able to grow from one to the other. There’s a good deal of distance between the numbers 0 and 1,000,000; but that’s fundamentally different than the difference between 0 and Infinity, which is how most people seem to see the child/adult sexuality gulf: they are fundamentally unmixable, which justifies the unilateral ban. I just don’t see it that way, I guess. > [@](#): > > _Bringing them together is irresponsible at best;_ Given our society’s current position on the subject, sure. Outside of that, I’m not sure this is so cut and dried. There are arguments for saying that depriving children of sexual experience is irresponsible, as well. > [@](#): > > - the greater the degree that consent is violated in the course of it aggravates the initial wrong, but it isn’t the source of it. A child doesn’t consent to needles (I sure wouldn’t have, given the choice), but it isn’t irresponsible to immunize them. That’s my position regardless of whether the child is crying to avoid getting stuck, or is exceptional in agreeing cheerfully to it.\* Again, this brushes my “arbitrariness” thingamajig. We violate children’s consent constantly, whenever we think it’s what’s best for them. Mention sex, however, and suddenly “informed consent” is not only required, but children are then forbidden to give it. It’s a curious double standard of telling kids, “It’s your body, and no-one has the right to make you do anything you don’t want to with it,” and then in the next breath, “Here’s a list of things you’re not allowed to do with it, whether you want to or not.” Denying children a sexual component to their development isn’t any less a violation of their consent than imposing one, IMO; just a _different_ violation. If a child can’t give informed consent to participate in a sexualised relationship, how can they give informed consent to being forbidden from doing so? They can’t, of course; but “informed consent” suddenly becomes a non-issue in that case. Again, an argument which is trumpeted when society objects to something, and ignored when it approves. Rather arbitrary in my book. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/13 "2001-09-03T15:31:18Z")
Here is one perspective: Even if I were to totally accept your arguements–which I don’t–I still think there is another problem–it’s not just that we cannot trust any given child to know what the really want, but the fact that we cannot trust any adult to correctly assess what the child wants/what is best for the child. As Fenris points out, many, many child molesters (perhaps most) honestly believe that the child wanted it, asked for it, initiated it, even in cases where that is manifestly not the case. The ability of an adult to correctly interpret a child’s behavior is totally unreliable. In the face of that,we have to come up with some sort of objective criteria, and age seems to be a pretty good one–sure, there is not a one-to-one coorospondence between age and maturity, but it is not a random coorspondence wither. We assume that a parent has no personal interest in whether or not a child is immunized, beyond a desire for the child’s well being. A person who wants to have sex with a child has a serious conflict of interest when determining whether or not that child really wants to have sex with him. Furthermore, I think the potential harm of too-early sex far, far outweighs the potential harm of too-long delayed sex. In the face of that, it seems like an abitrary bann on the side of caution–one that denys sex to those that might not be harmed by it rather that allows sex to those who might not be ready–is the only sensible course. ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piers-anthony-vile-or-visionary/78677/14 "2001-09-03T18:47:40Z")
Well, if hypothetical worlds were horses, they would drink. Er…something like that. In any case, the social realities of the world we all live in are a large component of why such a choice on the part of an adult is at best irresponsible–but I simply don’t see it as the only component. > [@](#): > > Again, this brushes my “arbitrariness” thingamajig. We violate children’s consent constantly, whenever we think it’s what’s best for them. That was pretty much the point of the immunization example. The non-consent issue is an aggravating factor in abuse, but it is not the root factor in why adult-child sexual contact is wrong. **Manda JO** said it so well that I’ll just repeat this, because I wish I could have expressed it with such clarity (damn you!): > [@](#): > > We assume that a parent has no personal interest in whether or not a child is immunized, beyond a desire for the child’s well being. A person who wants to have sex with a child has a serious conflict of interest when determining whether or not that child really wants to have sex with him. Part of making adult choices is recognizing caution zones, and choosing responsibly taking them into account. That may seem terribly unfair, and arbitrary, but it’s a (I think) rather simple fact. > [@](#): > > Denying children a sexual component to their development isn’t any less a violation of their consent than imposing one, IMO; just a different violation. I also don’t see, either in theory or from personal memory, how preventing adult-child sexual contact denies a development of that child’s sexuality. I don’t mean to take it entirely out of context, but I think the statement points up that gulf between them that I’m on about–it’s an adult prejudice that sexual development needs another person, since in the adult side of the gulf, it pretty much does. Children do quite handily on their own, pun intended.