Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): "Maybe you consider that a different topic..."
(Fr Andrew): I do. That was the basis for my statement that I'd never started a thread on this topic.

echidna

And later ... Do you think that they might also serve to justify more instances of wanton CSA ? Do you acknowledge the existence of malicious CSA ? Do you acknowledge that the perpetrators of such CSA often seek to defend, rationalise and justify their actions on the grounds of friendship, nurturing and compassion ? Do you think that that might have been worth considering in your reply to Odemus ? Or your “bewilderment” to Helen ?

Fr.Andrew, we’ve entertained your scenario. Would you like to entertain mine ?

http://iafrica.com/news/sa/182423.htm Maybe some subjects of intergenerational child sex do not receive lasting harm from the experience, but most do. Regardless of societal pressures, then how the hell can a genuine and responsible nurturer justify such an act ? With such overwhelming likelihood for negative consequences (although not necessarily guaranteed), the act can only be one of neglect.

Your repeated minimalisation of the whole CSA issue would be absurd if it weren’t so serious.

So many questions we could ask from this scenario …

Could we at all describe Meintjies’ role as one of nurturing ? Would you prefer that the 2 boys and 1 girl “made up” the whole story ? Would you prefer that their negative experiences about the whole event were an illusion created by society ? Do you see any possibility that they might even be telling the truth ?

Do you see any similarities in your story & mine ? Bear in mind that the harm from these actions usually takes years to emerge as the children grow & develop their self-awareness. If the boys are telling the truth, do you acknowledge that your artificial scenario might be constructed as an attempt to paint their scenario in a positive light ? Our Judeo-Christian culture has left us with many things, abhorrence of rape, rejection of murder & respect for adult freewill. Do you therefore suggest that these attitudes are misplaced as well ?

echidna

Maybe you are even correct Fr.Andrew. In the sense that if all males exhibited Michiel Meintjies’ behaviour towards children, as part of our culture, then maybe more children would accept it, maybe fewer would feel that they had a right to complain.

But do you consider a population of male Michiel Meintjies’s to be a healthy population ?

Do you think this would leave us with generations of happier children if this were part of our culture ?

Do you consider that female circumcision is a moral action, just because most Muslim women in countries which practise female circumcision, accept it as part of their culture & are afraid to speak out against it ?

Would you would be happier in such a culture where Michiel Meintjies’ actions were considered acceptable ?

Ronin

Then you are merely inobservant...now check Helen's.

Thank you for appreciating my civility.

I have provided a rather consistent and specific assessment of my perspective regarding your interest in accomodating the concept of child sexual abuse free from any taboo and explained the concept of the necessity of consent in simple terms...free from any innuendo.

Perhaps you are self-consciously generating some form of antagonism from my perspective out of a slight sense of guilt by contemplating the issue in this forum.

In any event, you appear to be building a wall between us with this claim and it is my hope that you will seek to address the issue with greater clarity in the future free from such distractions.

Merely objecting to reasonable answers to your repetitive query without sufficient defense, while distracting discourse by making claims that some are being emotional or acting like irrational theists will not enable further intelligent discussion.

In fact, as can be seen on that prior thread, it is a good way for you to claim some sort of 'martyrdom for the cause' ~ which is more reminiscent of theistic tactics than any I have seen others engage in on this site.

I have presented a link to that very thread in my post.

Apparently you are not reading my posts completely before responding. I recommend that you do so in the future so that you do not come across as being overly sensitive toward this issue.

My assessment stands as an accurate depiction complete with the previous threads you requested.

The fact that you still have not addressed the very same 'taboos' against murder, aggravated assault, rape, cannibalism, etc. in favor of an obvious fixation regarding sex with children is apparent for any reading this thread and the very link I provided.

You still seem overly emotional and attracted to this particular issue, Fr. Andrew.

The honest reader (aka lurker ) should also be interested in my follow up indication to your 'A Sex Question' thread where you responded to me so irrationally despite my stated inquiry into the totality of the circumstances leading up to your, now persistent, child sexual abuse inquiries.

My follow up offering is found here

I understand that it is possible that you never were able to view this related thread, Fr. Andrew, but it was my perspective after a necessary review of the circumstances.

At that time, you fell off of my radar as you seemed more intent on antagonizing people with crude remarks, false allegations and, to be brutally honest, a lack of simple human empathy for those responding to an extremely controversial topic.

Even the inhabitants of the IIDB are human beings living within social constructs and not in a vacuum, so a little more consistency and decorum may be required in order for you not to just come off as creepy...unless that is what you are shooting for.

That said ~ Your persistence, to date, in focusing on this particular topic under the 'social conditioning' or 'taboo' umbrella, while dismissing other equally disturbing crimes and avoiding the specific issue of the inability of children to formulate consent ~ other than to throw sand in reader's eyes by positing 'circumcision' as a possible equivalent violation ~ has now become a very real issue to address and consider in more depth.

So ~ allowing for the sake of discussion that circumcision also violates the integrity, sovereignty and dignity of the non-consenting child ~ do you now agree that there exists a valid reason to discourage, both legally and socially, sexual contact between an adult and a child?

If not, please simply do not 'object', but provide an articulate argument to support your assertion that it should be acceptable.

No, in my experience, it is a very specific issue to address ~ free from any 'slime' I assure you.

Why are you so emotionally sensitive to my observation, when you seem so quick to dismiss similar responses from others?

I had not considered you a possible 'perpetrator' of an actual crime, Fr. Andrew.

Did you want to make any specific admission at this point?

Perhaps, should you provide the actual crime scene, details of the offense and identity of the victim via PM, and I will accomodate you.



True. Again, that is not a part of my resume and I strive to articulate arguments within my department and in personal debate against such activity regarding consensual behavior.

That said ~ are you now agreeing with me that consent is the very issue to be considered regarding the topic of child sexual abuse?

I totally agree. Some anti-sodomy laws are still on the books, yet, rarely are these types of consensual sexual behaviors legally prosecuted, however.

It is not a 'strawman' as you are, quite obviously, attracted to the issue. Though I am not entirely sure, again, why this engenders such an irritated response from you.

I think myself and others have tirelessly pointed out to you why this topic is visceral to many here at the IIDB and in society at large.

I'm still not clear how you can persistently avoid understanding the specific issue of consent and sovereignty that I have provided, as you seem quite able to empathize with 'gay bar' standard.

At what point does your 'curiousity' regarding the responses you get over this issue become satiated?

Whatever perceived 'harm' that 'we' do to our children by burdening them with 'sexual guilt', would only be visciously magnified by a trusted adult violating them sexually.

The most significant harm anyone can do to another, is to impose their will upon the 'liberty of another' not willing or able to comply consensually...be that by force or by manipulating authority.

Please refer to my earlier statements in this very post regarding your lack of an actual argument against 'mental capacity to provide consent'.

No doubt.

Why then do you continue this debate and provide queries?

Have you been positing your assertion only rhetorically and then responding to the responses?

That doesn't seem sensible.

What an interesting time to claim that you are not seeking a remedy. (now, that's an innuendo )

Very true ~ you can only imagine such a conflict, as my philosophy is my career ~ and my eyes are sharp, thanks for asking, and they see right through you.

Fr.Andrew

(echidna): Do you acknowledge the existence of malicious CSA ?
(Fr Andrew): Of course. I would say that all CSA is malicious, by definition.
BTW--I just realized that I've been spelling your name wrong. I beg your pardon. That's where this "quote" feature would help, if it weren't so cumbersome.

(Echidna): Do you acknowledge that the perpetrators of such CSA often seek to defend, rationalise and justify their actions on the grounds of friendship, nurturing and compassion ?
(Fr Andrew): I've heard that...I think lunachick (or someone) mentioned it in last fall's thread..and have no reason to doubt it. It makes sense.

(echidna): If the boys are telling the truth, do you acknowledge that your artificial scenario might be constructed as an attempt to paint their scenario in a positive light ?
(Fr Andrew): Constructed...or construed? I suppose it could be construed that way...interpreted...but it was constructed as no more than an attempt to articulate, on request, the possibility that sexual contact between an adult and child may, in certain circumstances, be beneficial to the child.

(echidna): Do you see any similarities in your story & mine ?
(Fr Andrew): Other than the fact that both involve sex between an adult and a child, no.
In yours, the pedophile is a mentally deranged, stereotypical "dirty old man" who used children for sex, causing them pain and lasting trauma. In mine, she's a caring, loving aunt who allowed a situation to get out of hand because there was no demonstrable harm being done.
Night and day.
Your story is horrible, though--I don't want to appear insensitive. I can't imagine many things worse than being forced to have sex...particularly with someone like that.

(echidna): Our Judeo-Christian culture has left us with many things, abhorrence of rape, rejection of murder & respect for adult freewill. Do you therefore suggest that these attitudes are misplaced as well ?
(Fr Andrew): Of course not. Much of value has been handed down to us...along with a lot of nonsense.

(echidna): Maybe you are even correct Fr.Andrew. In the sense that if all males exhibited Michiel Meintjies’ behaviour towards children, as part of our culture, then maybe more children would accept it, maybe fewer would feel that they had a right to complain.
(Fr Andrew): That would not be my position. Mine is that if our culture was more accepting of intergenerational sex (intergenerational sex, now--not abuse)--if it wasn't regarded in such a foul light--the children who are party to it may not undergo such trauma.
An real-life analogy popped into my head. Some years ago, a good friend (female) was raped by a black man. At that time (mid-70s) in rural VA, inter-racial sex was regarded almost in the same light as inter-generational sex. My friend was mortified, as was her husband and community...not so much because she'd been brutally attacked, but because she'd been penetrated by a black man which, in that society, was taboo. There was talk behind her back, her kids were taunted, she and her husband went to counseling and finally divorced. My friend moved away to Poughkeepsie and took her kids.
If her community had been more accepting of inter-racial sex, I think my friend would have suffered less and would still be a member of it.


(echidna): Do you consider that female circumcision is a moral action, just because most Muslim women in countries which practise female circumcision, accept it as part of their culture & are afraid to speak out against it?
(Fr Andrew): No...I miss your point.

(echidna): Would you would be happier in such a culture where Michiel Meintjies’ actions were considered acceptable ?
(Fr Andrew): You're being silly.

HelenM

Is it really significantly harder to type {quote}{b} and {/b}{/quote} (but with square brackets) than to type out your name and the other person's name, repeatedly? I wouldn't have thought so but...

I find it hard to believe that anyone who is raped by anyone would be more upset about the skin color of the person who did it than that they were violated.

I understand how societal stigmas and fears could have made things much worse for her.

If her husband divorced her only because of the skin color of the man who raped her, I think that was a very foolish decision.

And from your lack of receptivity of what others have said to you on this thread I wonder whether you truly understood all the issues in that woman's situation. Or whether you've put your own spin on it because of your views about 'societal conditioning'. Rape is a horrible horrible thing regardless of whether racial prejudice stigmatizes a specific occurrence of it further or not.

Anyway, I know something about stigmas and societal conditioning. I've experienced how people react to someone with a mental illness. I'm not unaware that humans suffer unnecessarily because of stigmas based on fear and ignorance. But I think you want to go too far and remove that part of 'societal conditioning' which as Ronin pointed out, is based in the reality that some acts should be taboo because they are always harmful to other people. I do not believe society can benefit from a move from "it's always wrong for adults to have sex with children" to "hey, it might be beneficial - so let's try it!"

But....setting all that aside, here you have made the mistake again of failing, seemingly, to see the difference between a child and an adult - because you give an adult-adult sex example to try to illustrate your questions about adult-child sex.

Anyway, why give a non-consentual example?

Why do you want to impute adult sexuality to children? Was it your own childhood experience that children are as sexual as adults? Is it the experience of children you know?

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): I understand how societal stigmas and fears could have made things much worse for her.
(Fr Andrew): I'll come back this afternoon and respond to this excellent post, HelenM--but I wanted to quickly say that your sentence sums up my interest in matters relating to children and sex. I think our societal stigmas and fears make things much worse for them.

And I wanted to thank you for the lesson in using the quotes--where can I find out more? I've been trying to do it by clicking on "quote" and working my comments into what shows up on the screen. That's what I've found cumbersome, because I'm used to composing posts on my word processor and then pasting them to the forum.

HelenM

One thing you can do is click the "quote" button on posts formatted the way you like and see what coding shows up in the reply box. Then you can cancel that screen but type that same coding into your own posts as you write them elsewhere.

Bear in mind that the quote button won't copy what's already within quotes into the reply box in this bulletin board system.

But I think it always copies what's not in quotes, so you can see how it was coded.

You can also see how images, smilies, hyperlinks and emphasized text are coded, by doing that.

Also you can click the faq button at the top of the boards and read what it says about formatting your posts.

Helen

Ronin

So this sums up your interest in matters relating to children and sex?

Outstanding!

Now that we have you here ~

1). Do these 'social stigmas and fears' override a child's inability to provide consent to sexual activity in any possible scenario?

2). Other than merely saying that the activity is 'nurturing', is the perpetual lack of consent (due to lack of mental capacity) an inherently abusive violation of the child's liberty?

3). Would the argument that a 'lack of consent' explain the 'social stigma and fear' that an adult having sexual contact with a child is never justified and make it a valid concept free from a repetitive need for 'curious examination'?

Thank you for your specificity in this manner, Fr. Andrew.

I anxiously await your direct response.

Bree

I find it extremely interesting that Fr. Andrew claims he is not a veteran of debate on this topic, nor has he spent much time in discussion - and yet he can ask a good number of friends about the hypothetical female/female intergenerational situation (Mimi/Reenie) and say these people are used to him bringing up such things.