HelenM

No, because the implication of that is, let's make it ok for adults to engage in sexual activity with children

I'd say, the more stigma the better, regarding doing what I believe is never appropriate.

I agree.

But - given your views, I'm surprised you don't think he was insufficiently progressive. I mean, he didn't exactly have a program suggesting we throw off all our reservations about children and adults engaging in sexual activity together.

"Hello children! Welcome to Mr Rogers neighborhood, where your neighboring adults are ready and willing to have sex with you" - give me a break!!! It seems to me that's the opposite of what "Mr Rogers" would ever have wanted.

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(Ronin~): Personal sovereignty, integrity and consent.
(Fr Andrew): That doesn't really answer my question. Parents and guardians are tasked with seeing to those aspects of a child's life until the child is "of age". It's considered proper, for instance, that a parent would violate the personal sovereignty, integrity and consent of a child by putting them through a circumcision at the hands of a total stranger, but totally improper to let them sleep with Uncle Fred.
What is it about sex?

Fr.Andrew

I hold Mr Rogers in high esteem because he was always interested in the welfare of children. So am I.
In my opinion, we do a disservice to our kids by foisting on them our unexamined sexual baggage.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Just going about my normal day. The people I interviewed were not strangers--they know I'm liable to come up with strange stuff. ;-)
I thought I'd explained pretty well the facial expressions--hard and ominous when told of male-male and male-female, but somewhat softer when granny was substituted.
No smiles.
Any ideas why the difference?

Fr.Andrew

Here's one study.
If you scroll down about half-way, you find:

"The following distributions were found regarding self-perceived effects (see bottom of Table 2): for the males with CSA, 4% said their experience caused permanent damage; 33% said it was harmful at the time, but with no lasting effects; 57% said it had no effect; and 6% said it improved the quality of their life. The distribution for the females with CSA was: 13% reported permanent damage; 51% said it was harmful at the time, but with no lasting effects; 34% said it had no effect; and 2% said it improved the quality of their life. These results strongly contradict popular views that CSA typically scars its victims for life: only 4% of males and 13% of females thought the harm was permanent." (emphasis mine)

HelenM

It's scary to me to read that from someone who has no problem with an adult doing nothing to discourage sexual activity between said adult and a person who is uncontrovertibly still a child - definitely pre-puberty.

I suppose you'll say my fears stem from unexamined sexual baggage, though...

I agree but to me that means we don't pass on inappropriate shame over enjoying sex in the right context.

It doesn't mean we remove the protection we ought to give them against adults doing things with them that children are not physically or emotionally ready to handle, and which therefore are likely to have seriously negative consequences for them.

Think about it - how will you test your theory that some sexual contact between adults and kids can be beneficial, without allowing more of it?

Is that an ethical experiment? In my opinion it definitely is not.

Helen

HelenM

It's an activity for adults, not children!!!

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): It's scary to me to read that from someone who has no problem with an adult doing nothing to discourage sexual activity between said adult and a person who is uncontrovertibly still a child - definitely pre-puberty.
(Fr Andrew): I don't think that's quite what I'm saying HelenM...or at least that's not the meaning I intend. I was asked to articulate a situation in which sexual contact between a child and an adult may have come about inadvertantly (not intended or coerced), continued in all innocence...and be beneficial to the child.
I thought I did a pretty good job.
I'm not championing intergenerational sex or excusing abuse or defending active pedophiles or suggesting that we relax any CSA laws or moral codes.
Only that we examine the subject in a less dogmatic way.
And I'm really curious why this particular subject causes such a...a...(what's the word I'm looking for?) reaction.

(HelenM): Think about it - how will you test your theory that some sexual contact between adults and kids can be beneficial, without allowing more of it?
(Fr Andrew): The only "theory" that I have, which I'd like to see tested/discussed, is that there is no longer a good reason to hold to many of our cultural sexual taboos and foist them on our children.
With respect to testing the notion that sexual contact between adults and children can, in some instances, be beneficial to the child--you do that by interviewing the victims, as the researchers did in the study that I linked for lunachick.

HelenM

It's the last part I question - I don't see any way in which you've proved the sexual activity was benefitical to the child.

Because you're trying to show that something most of us find indistinguishable from child sexual abuse is not only harmless but beneficial.

I don't think interviewing the victims proves anything unless you can establish that the consent of a child is valid - and most of us don't agree that it is, as best I can tell. Do you not see that the victims saying it's ok/beneficial could be for lots of reasons and is problematic in the same way that child consent is?

Plus, there are lots of victims who say it was unquestionably very harmful to them. Do you think none of them ever 'seemed' to give consent?

take care
Helen

Ronin

Asked and answered forthrightly, Fr. Andrew.

That you are having such a difficult time accepting this speaks more about your mindset than anyone else currently posting on this thread.

And, quite frankly...I'm really curious why this particular subject causes such a...a...(what's the word I'm looking for?) reaction from you.