Ronin

Yes, you can set an age of consent by statute ~ and then you can let a jury review the facts and circumstances.

What you cannot do is let a pedophile make that determination.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by dangin
And Amen-Moses, just because other forms of abuse exist, does not lessen this one.

True.

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.

Well maybe we are on different parts of the same page. Having suffered from both physical and mental abuse I feel qualified to position them however I feel appropriate and in my book mental and physical abuse *can* be far worse than sexual abuse (obviously depending on what you are comparing with what).

I have had people claiming that men exposing themselves to children is sex abuse and should be severely punished (and if this is the case then I have also been sexually abused!) yet these same people then defend shutting "naughty" children away in their rooms without supper.

When I was 10 a policeman visited the school to warn us about a man seen flashing in the park. As soon as the school bell rang half the girls in the class hightailed it to the park to try and catch a glimpse! (and half the boys went along to "protect" them ).

I have rarely met anyone who hasn't experienced something that the "professionals" would class as abuse during their childhood yet very few are bothered by it or would class it as having been harmful, those that do usually only do so after the "professionals" have had their wicked way with them.

Amen-Moses

Ronin

Exactly, 99Percent, and as I said ~ This will be true, regardless of the half-hearted excuses and disclaimers that may be perpetuated by some in this thread.

Amen-Moses

I do not advocate taking drugs (because it is illegal) yet I personally do not think that ALL drugs are harmful.

So it is not contradictory.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

True but it is a meaningless statement. A 16 year old nymphomaniac porn star from Spain could visit the US and be deemed "unable to consent" purely due to her age. A 14 year old "unable to consent" girl from the US could go a few miles north to Canada and suddenly she is able to consent.

The consentingness (for want of a better word) is not inherent in the individual but is in the laws of wherever you happen to be.

If you label someone as "unable" to do something by law then fine if they do that thing they are breaking the law so it is wrong, that has no bearing though on whether they are *able* to do that thing only on whether they *should* do it.

Amen-Moses

HelenM

But the girl in Fr Andrew's story is seven, not fourteen or sixteen.

Helen

dangin

Amen-Moses, I too think that if someone classifies a parent who sleeps in the nude, or allows their child to see them in the bathroom (showering, passing waste) as child abuse then that is a ludicrous definition. I would also state that many families in northern Europe (as is my experience) would qualify as sexual abusers under that standard, as would any culture where nudity and biological functions are not hidden, but treated as the every day things they are.

When I am talking about sexual abuse, I mean oral or penetrative sex, or masturbation, mutual or otherwise.

The fact that Fr. Andrews scenario is not the usually thought of penetrative rape of a child that is conjured when sex abuse is discussed, does not lessen the fact that within his scenario the sexual actions between the two character are not necessary to aid the relationship at all.

Everyone could go wank on their own, get their release, and the relationship would be just as nurturing, without any possible intergenerational sexual side effects.

He is simply arguing in the role of a pedarest enabler, and has stated nothing to back his claim of "harmlessness".

A simple comparison perhaps.

let's take the mimi and reenie story and make it two different scenarios.

Scenario one is exactly as Fr. Andrews has posted it.

Scenario two is exactly as Fr. Andrews posted it, minus the grinding.

Which of these two scenarios leads to a less complicated life for Mimi? Which scenario increases Mimi's utility?

Ronin

This makes no sense at all, Amen-Moses.

The very issue is with the inability of children to make an informed consent to a sexual act. The standard is to address this by legal statute and then review the facts and circumstances in the proper forum.

Again, there must be a generally understood age of consent by statute in order to provide the undeveloped child the benefit of the doubt and protection from the adult abuser.

You have entered the realm of that misty gray teenage nexus, by the way, while I am more studiously exploring the hypothetical 'child' well under that age range.

Mad Kally

Where were you that you talked about pedophila (of a 7 year old girl) to seven people yesterday and they didn't seem all that bothered by the grandma story? How did their faces look with the grandma story as opposed to the grandpa story? Did they smile? Just curious.

Amen-Moses

Well this is really the point isn't it?

Where we set that age range is the important thing and for my money I would rather take each situation on merit and legislate appropriately, i.e all factors should be taken into account rather than just a specific age limit.

It is all too easy to take extremes but far harder when the grey areas are involved but if we solve the grey areas shouldn't the extremes pretty much take care of themselves?

How about legislating forms of abuse and levels of emotional development etc rather than just arbitrary age limits? Is it even possible to approach the subject that way?

As an aside I watched a documentary recently where an anthropologist was arguing that chimps (and other "higher" primates) should be included within a "rights" charter. Now as I understood it this would include giving these species similar rights to those we give humans but the question noone on the programme seemed to tackle was that rights are meaningless without laws to enforce them, how would we tackle the rights of Bonobos for example whose "culture" includes the free expression of sexuality amongst all ages and sexes (about every ten minutes apparently!)?

Would we try to impose human sexual mores upon Bonobo's?

Or to make this less Sci-Fi like, should we impose western sexual mores upon all other humans on the planet? If so what gives us the right to do so and furthermore what gives us the right to specify which set of sexual mores are the "right" one?

Amen-Moses