Amen-Moses

Originally posted by dangin
Amen-Moses, Which is worse?

A small, not yet developed body, that has been penetrated by an adult penis, and had it's flesh torn because of it.

Or the same child beaten.

Both do physical damage, both do mental damage.

So which is worse? I would say they are both equally as bad but society wants to lock up the perp in the first case for 50 years and do absolutely nothing to the perp in the second case, is that right?

Some adults can't have sex without mental damage, but you would posit that it can be "harmless" for children?

Some adults can have sex without mental damage but you would posit that it cannot be harmless for children?

edited to add: You seem to be saying at the end that sexual contact between adults and children is abuse. You just don't understand why it is worse than a beating. But at the same time you say that auntie and niece grinding on each other is better than a foster home where the girl gets neglected, beaten, mentally abused, etc. etc.

What's wrong with saying it's all wrong?

Nothing, and I never said it wasn't all wrong but society seems to have extremely twisted views on where the priorities lie. AFAIAC sexual contact is not ALWAYS abuse whereas beating is, therefore the emphasis should be on beatings. The same goes for other forms of abuse especially mental abuse which I would put at the top of the list but I doubt whether we will be locking up fathers for calling their children stupid anytime soon!

Amen-Moses

Fr.Andrew

(Amen Moses): I just don't understand why sex is given such a huge priority over all the other forms of abuse which imo are far more damaging.
(Fr Andrew): It's manifestation of our general morbid attitude toward sex, I think--which is the gift of our Christian heritage.
Sex is a sin and condemned in any case, according to the church, but it's necessary for procreation--so allowances are made in the cases of married couples who do it, get it over with, and don't enjoy it.
Christians weren't the first to demonize sex, by any means, but they can certainly take credit for having fine-tuned things over the past 2000 years and for infecting the Western world with the notion that things sexual are bad, bad, bad.

Fr.Andrew

(Ronin): The issue for many supporting the argument that this type of behavior is or can be acceptable must now delineate, for the sake of discussion, at what age the 'child' does become informed and mature enough to provide a valid, articulable consent.
(Fr Andrew): I agree, but I think that would vary with the child...you can't set an arbitrary age of consent.
Some kids mature quicker than others.

Fr.Andrew

(Bree): I think sex is given a bigger priority because of the amount of damage that can be done, even if the abuse only occurs "once" - for example, Daddy smacks you with his belt once versus Daddy forces you to perform oral sex on him.
(Fr Andrew): Is the damage done by the one instance of oral sex on Daddy--or by the social stigma attached to it?

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): Well, a sexual activity is taking place, the child is performing it and the adult is enjoying it. That's what I read and so from that I wrote that the adult was using the child for sex.
(Fr Andrew): They're both performing it--and they both enjoy it.

(HelenM): I don't understand why you think an old lady would assume there's no harm in sexual activity with a child.
(Fr Andrew): The old lady saw obvious pleasure and no signs of unhappiness. Why should she assume that there was harm taking place?

Bumble Bee Tuna

I would imagine that if the two parties enjoy the sexual activities, and the child does not harbor some sort of psychological issues from it, there is a net benefit. I think that would be rare but certainly possible. And since this is a hypothetical and not a "should pedophilia be legal" thread, that's fine by me.

I think Fr.Andrew raises a good point on whether it's the stigma or the actual act that causes harm, but I do not think it's something that will ever be determined.

I also think everyone here is having a hard time differentiating between, say, forcing a child into giving sex and something like Fr.Andrew's situation. Both are lumped into the molestation category but they are certainly different.

PLEASE NOTE: I do not advocate any adult ever engaging in any sexual acts with children, regardless of the rare time when it is not a bad thing.

-B

dangin

BBT, since you are now joining those who say that there is a "rare time" when sex with children is nurturing, perhaps you can share the anecdote of this that Fr. Andrews has so far failed to produce.

And Fr. Andrews still has not lived up to his original criteria, nor has he included a "penetrative" scenario.

He also has not addressed that the relationship between Reenie and Mimi would have been just has nurturing without the sex.

He has also not dealt with the long term implications of such a relationship. Social stigma aside. We are discussing a sexual relationship between a seven year old and at least a 37 year old. So an age gap of at least 30 years. Probably much more.

Now between a 20-year-old and a 50-year-old we have the same age gap, but the 20-year-old has more experience, and stronger developed sense of self, and is sexually mature. The 20-year-old could weather the end of the relationship better than the 7-year-old. Because of the 20-year-old's added maturity, and because the 7-year-old is developing a sexual relationship with an adult, an adult care giver, and the sole adult authority in her life. This hypothetical adult is the parent, lover, financial supporter, nurturer, be all end all of everything for Mimi. Mimi has no other option, and that will affect her regardless of societies views.

And if we are going to talk about being able to give consent. Or the age at which one can give consent. The Fr. Andrew's story is particularly heinous, because Mimi is in a particularly vulnerable situation when placed in the care of Reenie.

It's one thing to understand that vulnerable adult women make easy pickings for men who wish to prey on them. Quite another when the vulnerable party is a child, and the vulnerability is written into the story to make the abuser seem sympathetic.

And Fr. Andrews, I'm still waiting on you to answer any of my questions. Or are you still pouting because I say fuck too much.

I mean you polled people about pedophelia, yet you pretend that the word fuck disturbs you. What are you thinking man?


And Amen-Moses, just because other forms of abuse exist, does not lessen this one. If you can simply agree to that then we are pretty much on the same page, except that sex abuse of children will still remain one of the highest forms of abuse I can imagine.

HelenM

The fact that you would never advocate it implies you don't really think it could ever be beneficial, doesn't it?

Helen

99Percent

But that benefit would have to be strictly accidental. If I stole your car the night you were completely drunk and you had the intention of driving that night, I might have done you a favor by stealing your car so there was a "net benefit", but that doesn't mean that stealing cars is right or even might be right under certain circumstances. This is called consequentialism and IMO, it detracts against any kind of meaningful moral theory, because its clear that no one can fully predict the actual consequences of our actions.
Only the individual can determine it in his rational capability to do so. A child is not such an individual, yet. A child has no clue of what the social stigmas of such sexual actions carry, or if they can hurt him or not, because sexuallity by its definition is an adult characteristic.One involves coercion and the other manipulation, regardless it is still unequal and unconsensual on the part of the minor against the adult. Nice disclaimer, but it is contradictory. If it can sometimes be not a bad thing, which means it can be a good thing, then you cannot say you do not advocate it.

HelenM

It seems to me you're unrealistically writing about the seven year old as if she is an adult. You attribute adult sexuality to her and you also have the old lady responding as adults respond to each other sexually when they are attracted to one another and engage in sexual activity together.

Why? Because she wasn't born yesterday Because she's had a lifetime in which to learn what is and isn't appropriate between children and adults. Because she probably watches the news and knows what child abuse is. Because adults are not attracted to children sexually, in the normal course of events. Because children do not seek out sexual activity with adults, in the normal course of events. Nothing about your scenario changes that but yet you wrote a story about a child and adult doing what children and adults don't do.

Helen