brighid

Intensity,

No one appears to be twisting your words by asking you to clarify a position by stating “do you mean..?”

Brighid

Ted Hoffman

AntiChris said: Well, I'll have to admit defeat. I really have no idea what it is you're trying to say

In summary, what I am saying is that non-consensual sex only applies to adults because they are the ones capable of engaging in consensual sex. You, on the other hand are asserting that one can have non-consensual sex with children.

<puts on his teaching hat>
Okay, lets recapitulate:
You said:
By transferring consent from the child to the adult you'd be effectively removing the protection of from rape laws from the child.

I did not transfer consent from the child to the adult, because children have no consensual power. Are we clear on that?
Please retract that statement.

you also said: Assuming penetration occurred, it would, in most cases, be rape. Once again from Michael's link:

And quoted from michael's link as below. I have highlighted the part of the quote that contradicts what you are claiming.

This means that is someone was asked for her consent to engage in sex and she refused, then she gets subdued via some means that cripples her ability to thwart the intercourse, then it can be considered rape. So, the person must have been in a position to refuse the sex. Thus must also have been in a position to consent. A kid cannot be in a position to consent (legally) because their consent is outlawed in such matters.

There is Rape (forceful), coercive sex (getting reluctant consent via blackmail, threat of violence etc) and non-consensual sex (where the victim is drugged, sick etc).
Statutory rape (a term used in some countries) refers to "a man's taking sexual advantage of a child, a mental defective, or other person presumed to lack comprehension of the physical and other consequences of sexual intercourse" (realize the anti-men bias of such a law and the loophole it presents to dishonest and vengeful females).

Did Michaels links use the word statutory?

</teaching hat off>

<sits back, rests his feet on the table and, with exaggerated nonchalance clicks "Add Reply">

Ah, brighid, nice to know you are there.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

The AntiChris

Intensity

I think this could genuinely be construed as "twisting my words".

Of course not.

You're splitting semantic hairs about an irrelevancy in order to avoid answering the actual question.

I suppose this is one possible interpretation of the quote from Michael's link. Your interpretation depends on the assumption that "willingness" is assumed in the absence of any firm, explicit, refusal from the victim prior to the sexual assault.

The practical conseqence of this interpretation is that if you did intend to drug someone to take sexual advantage of them, you would be better not to ask for consent than to ask and be refused! I suspect this is not what the law intended.


Chris

echidna

Michael, while the Scottish definition is the first which comes up under a Google search, Scotland and other conservative countries are notorious for their backward legal stances on such issues.

With all due respect, the Scottish definition is crap. I'm too lazy to retype the pdf file, but check the last section, Reaction to Lord Abernethy's Ruling. The whole paper addresses the obviously controversial nature of that definition & how out-of-step it is amongst contemporary western law. Why not choose the Saudi definition or the Iraqi definition ? Just as slavery used to be enshrined in law, the Scottish definition is useful as an indicator of attitudes a century ago but now increasingly anachronistic, and one which history indicates will soon change as it has in most other western countries.

A more western representative definition is the Californian rape definition.

<a href="http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Abuse/lisk/legal_rape_definition.htm" target="_blank">http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Abuse/lisk/legal_rape_definition.htm</a>

(emphasis mine)

I trust you’re not promoting the Scottish version as better than the Californian definition ? Otherwise posting it would simply appear to be an exercise in cultural relativism. In many countries a man doesn’t require the consent of his wife to have intercourse, but surely the rape definition we’re talking about is different.

Of course, Intensity’s definition would appear to be quite quite different to the Californian one.

Don’t worry Intensity, your confused and erratic reasoning continues to astound me. Like nailing jelly to the wall, I can only conclude that your evasiveness over 14 pages to explain yourself clearly (as not just myself have complained) must be deliberate. Any normal intellectual person would have been able to clarify their position without such contortions. Kudos to those with more patience.

Kindly rephrase your answers in the context of the Californian definition, if you are able.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

JerryM

Man, I go on vacation for 10 days, cruise the web when I get back, and find this thread is still active. Amazing. Just for curiosity, I ran a PubMed search on childhood sexuality. There's a lot of published material, (lots of case reports) but the data on harmful effects seems mostly based on retrospective studies. (I admit, I mainly scanned the abstracts going back 2 years or so--to completely read all the articles would be overwhelming.) A recent article from a group at the Mass General Hospital is a good example. They identified a group of 149 adults with established diagnoses of panic disorder, social phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Then they asked them if they had been physically or sexually abused as children. Overall, 23% of patients reported being physically or sexually abused. Panic disorder was significantly associated with reports of past abuse. Social phobics actually reported lower rates of past abuse. The study is obviously limited by how abuse is defined and assessed. Self-reporting by affected patients may obviously be somewhat suspect. And there was no distinction made between sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, socio-economic factors, or other important variables. A lot of the research seems to have these problems, but obviously it's a tough issue to study in a fully controlled manner. I still maintain that sexual abuse of a child is wrong (because it is an unjustifiable violation of autonomy). But aside from a lot of anecdotal evidence, there are methodological difficulties with determining how damaging it is. Anyone interested can access the Mass General study at <a href="http://www.jonmd.com" target="_blank">http://www.jonmd.com</a> Navigate to the July, 20002 issue. The abstract is available for free. "History of Childhood Abuse in Panic Disorder, Social Phobia, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder," by Safren, Gershuny, et al.

echidna

Jerry M, threads are usually kept alive by posting the words “bump”. Alternatively they can be bumped by posting paragraphs of empty words.

Data such as yours has already been rejected by Intensity much as the same way a YEC denies that the earth might be more than 6000 years old. Oddly, I don’t bother debating YEC’s either.

Ted Hoffman

AntiChris

First you claimed I said any harm to children is as a result of societal indoctrination.

Then said I am advocating for children to be exposed to sexual use by adults.

Then asked me "why should children be raped but not adults?" (implying that I had said children should be raped)

Then said that we have not outlawed the consent of children in sexual matters (just being plain argumentative)

Then told me "Unless you can establish that children are capable of giving informed consent I don't see how adult sex with children can be defended" (implying I was defending adult sex with children)

Then said "Sex with someone who does not or cannot provide informed consent is rape." (rape being based on inability to give consent, which I refuted)

Then asked me "Are you saying that children should be coerced into sex with adults because it really is "best for them" or are you saying that they should be coerced merely because we can (obedience, trust etc)and because some adults want to?"(asking me whether I am saying what I have not said - trying to get me irritated)

And added "By transferring consent from the child to the adult you'd be effectively removing the protection of from rape laws from the child. Do you see any problems here?" (accusing me of something I did not do then asking me whether I can see any problems with that)

And then "Well, I'll have to admit defeat. I really have no idea what it is you're trying to say" (claiming I am incoherent)

And now echidna "Intensity, your confused and erratic reasoning continues to astound me. Like nailing jelly to the wall, I can only conclude that your evasiveness over 14 pages to explain yourself clearly (as not just myself have complained) must be deliberate. Any normal intellectual person would have been able to clarify their position without such contortions. Kudos to those with more patience. " (plainly insulting me - even at the cost of contradicting herself)

When I see a sense of seriousness (both of you), I will respond to your posts. It seems you are intent of turning this into a circus, by insulting me, accusing me of saying what I have not said, and throwing red herrings in my path. I really wouldnt go into finding out what rape means as per carlifornian law, south african law, australian law, scotish law etc, because this thread simply is NOT a survey of legal definitions of rape in various countries.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Jerry M,
Thanks a lot for your post.

The study is obviously limited by how abuse is defined and assessed.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Self-reporting by affected patients may obviously be somewhat suspect.

Why is that?

I still maintain that sexual abuse of a child is wrong (because it is an unjustifiable violation of autonomy).
Please clarify your meaning by answering the following:

a) What is autonomy in this context?
b) What constitutes violation of ones autonomy?
c) When is it justifiable to violate autonomy?
d) I'snt "unjustifiable violation" a tautology? Or does it have a special meaning?

The AntiChris

Intensity

You must surely be aware that the ideas you're asking us to consider here are highly controversial and will undoubtedly stimulate extreme emotional responses. On the whole you've coped with the gut-reaction responses reasonably well. However, when pushed to flesh out your ideas in order to examine how they might work in practice, we seem to run into problems.

You appear to be oblivious to the fact that I, like you, have serious doubts about the rationality of many of western society's attitudes to sex in general and to adolescent sexuality in particular. In order to better understand your ideas I've attempted to interpret them in a manner that makes sense to me and, at the same time, draw your attention to issues that, in my opinion, are either unclear or could attract 'legitimate' criticism.

Unfortunately you appear to be determined to take this as personal vilification.

If you genuinely want engage people in a debate about such controversial issues, you really need to develop a thicker skin.

Chris

JerryM

For Intensity:

I really think we've about beaten this thread to death, and any further comments are going to be repetitious. My point in the latter post was that much of the evidence of harm from sexual abuse is from case reports (it still has validity.) Retrospective studies, where adults report what has happened in the past, may be subject to errors--possibly faulty memory; also, the child abuse field unfortunately has some history of false allegations and "fabricated" memories. There is no doubt that child sexual abuse can cause harm, especially depression and various anxiety disorders, but the actual extent is difficult to study systematically.

Re autonomy: I know I'm repeating myself. Autonomy encompasses many things--making decisions for oneself, or, not being used for another person's benefit without one's consent. In context of this thread, I use it in it's most fundamental sense--that is, the basic right of everyone, child or adult, to simply be left alone. Yes, it is not absolute. Autonomy can be superceded (let's use this term instead of violated) in some circumstances. You know what these are: if it's necessary to prevent harm to the individual or to others, or if an intervention is necessary to benefit an individual who cannot give consent for himself. But that is the key--it is only ethical to suspend autonomy if doing so will provide a clear, objective benefit or will prevent harm. Making kids go to school, or get vaccinations provides a benefit. (And I agree that the evidence doesn't support routine circumcision.) I would be interested to see some objective evidence that engaging a child in sexual activity is beneficial. (As stated above, the available data shows, albeit imperfectly, that it is harmful.) Since children, by definition, are not capable of consent, and that having sex with children is harmful to them and not beneficial, it is an unethical suspension of their autonomy to use them for another's sexual gratification. It's not that complicated--when it comes to sex, you, me, a child, or anyone else should just be left alone, unless he or she can consent otherwise. This is my opinion--no one has to agree, but I think it's eminently reasonable and logical. And I think it's time to move on to other discussions.