Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 05:21 PM

(ex-xian--previously): Also, why do you not advocate intergenerational sex?
(Fr Andrew--previously): Because the jury is still out on the emotional harm that it does the child (and why), and I think it would be better to exercize caution until we know more about it.

(Fr Andrew): On re-reading my response, ex-xian, I don't think I answered your question very well. I have no interest in advocating for any form of sexual expression in particular. I think people should feel free to do as they please, sexually--provided they cause no harm--and I believe that society holds them back from doing so by virtue of a series of inherited sexual taboos...some of which no longer make sense and actually cause harm themselves.
With respect to intergenerational sex--I don't know. I think there's enough risk involved so far as the emotional health of the child is concerned--from whatever cause--that we should certainly err on the side of caution until more is known.
In any case, I don't see that a non-emotional examination of the issue hurts anything. Any issue. I can't think of a single instance when too much knowledge is a bad thing.

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daleth
Well, I think that answers what was going to be my next question, but just to make sure, you said: I'd say that any adult who has sexual contact with a child is a child molester. Would you agree?

(Fr Andrew): If you define a child molester as an adult who has sex with a child, then I'd have to agree.
I don't agree that every instance of sexual contact between an adult and a child is molestation. Or abusive.

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
Ok, but let's stick to your scenario. Do you find it weird and unrealistic too?

Helen

(Fr Andrew): A little weird...but not unrealistic. I can really imagine it happening.
BTW--how'm I doing with this format?

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
But I didn't come here "from the religion forums".

I've been aware of this site since before the discussion forums here even opened. I wrote to Dr William Lane Craig on behalf of this site in 1996: see here.

Helen

(Fr Andrew): We misunderstood each other. I meant the religion forums here at IIDB...because I thought that was dangin's reference.
I just meant that you're a theist and that you participate in different forums here.

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
Quite right, and he never answered my question from that thread. His point then being that the sexual experience was emotionally "good" for the young girl. The question was simply "repeat the same scenario, and remove the sex, which of the two has greater utility for the child?" But I was on his ignore list then.

(Fr Andrew): I don't know if I could have helped you much had I seen this. I'm not sure what you mean by "utility". Value?
If so, I don't know. I don't think anyone is in a position to say.
If I'm allowed more artistic freedom, I can imagine that the presence or absence of a sexual aspect to their relationship wouldn't have made a particle of difference in the value of the relationship to the child.

HelenM · 07-11-2003, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): A little weird...but not unrealistic. I can really imagine it happening.

I find it hard to imagine unless the adult is a pedophile and the child has already been abused.

Quote:

BTW--how'm I doing with this format?

Good! For what it's worth, you don't need to put your name in parentheses by your reply since the post is labelled clearly as written by you.

Quote:

We misunderstood each other. I meant the religion forums here at IIDB...because I thought that was dangin's reference.
I just meant that you're a theist and that you participate in different forums here.

Ok, fair enough. I'm not sure though, which you're referring to as the 'religious forums at IIDB' since religion gets discussed - or brought up in the course of discussion - on most of them.

Helen

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
As a child I was taught that sex was dirty in fact I was taught that playing with myself would (and this is just a small selection):

Cause blindness (something that really bothered me when aged 11 I needed glasses to correct myopia which progressed really quickly during puberty).

Stunt my growth. (I was a very short child)

Grow hairs on my palms. (not sure why that would be a bad thing )

Cause my penis to drop off.

I don't know the origins of these claims and different adults taught different ills that would befall me, maybe some are religious teachings maybe not I wasn't educated enough at the time to make head nor tail of them.

(Fr Andrew): I've often wondered about the source of those old wive's tales--I heard them, too. I think the suggestion that masturbation would cause hair to grow on the palms of the hands was a ruse to get boys to glance at their palms. Whereupon everyone would laugh at them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses

I consider those teachings to have been harmful even though I eventually grew out of them but I have tried my best to aviod similar bad teachings to my own children, now I am being hounded by social services purely because my own children are "overly sexualised". What they really mean is that my children have no taboos and thus they readily engage sexually with their peers yet society sees this behaviour as taboo, then they assume that this behaviour is unnatural (which couldn't be further from the truth) and have actually made the accusation that they must have "learned" the behaviour by being sexually abused!

(Fr Andrew): Amazing! We've reached the point where uninhibited sexuality is considered evidence of past abuse.

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses

Anyone who has ever kept pets knows that sexual behaviour is perfectly normal and doesn't have to be taught so why do these supposed experts assume that humans (with their vastly superior intellect) need to be taught it? Surely working out that peg A goes into slot B is easily within the capabilities of the human brain.

Amen-Moses

(Fr Andrew): I think that's where the influence of religion enters the picure. It assumes that man is above the beasts, and so a great deal of ecclesiastical effort over the years has gone into drawing up rules designed to keep us from behaving with sexual abandon.
Children are not corrupted with such nonsense and act more naturally until the rules are foisted on them.

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
I'm not sure though, which you're referring to as the 'religious forums at IIDB' since religion gets discussed - or brought up in the course of discussion - on most of them.

Helen

Well that's kinda what I thought, thus my confusion about dangin's suggestion that I take it to the religion forum. I see now that he meant I should leave the IIDB altogether.
I'm talking about the Biblical Criticism forum and the General Religious forum, for the most part. I read your stuff.

HelenM · 07-11-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
Well that's kinda what I thought, thus my confusion about dangin's suggestion that I take it to the religion forum. I see now that he meant I should leave the IIDB altogether.
I'm talking about the Biblical Criticism forum and the General Religious forum, for the most part. I read your stuff.

I don't think dangin was talking about forums per se. I think he was saying "why are you talking to people who are mostly nontheists when your complaint is against religious people?"

To equate that with "you should leave IIDB" goes beyond what he actually wrote, in my opinion. What his thoughts are, I do not know - I only know what he wrote.

Helen

Loren Pechtel · 07-11-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
As a child I was taught that sex was dirty in fact I was taught that playing with myself would (and this is just a small selection):

Cause my penis to drop off.

Of course! If you don't periodically dip it in her oil pot, it will rust and fall off! Same reason homosexuality is bad!

07-11-2003, 05:21 PM	#41
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	For ex-xian (ex-xian--previously): Also, why do you not advocate intergenerational sex? (Fr Andrew--previously): Because the jury is still out on the emotional harm that it does the child (and why), and I think it would be better to exercize caution until we know more about it. (Fr Andrew): On re-reading my response, ex-xian, I don't think I answered your question very well. I have no interest in advocating for any form of sexual expression in particular. I think people should feel free to do as they please, sexually--provided they cause no harm--and I believe that society holds them back from doing so by virtue of a series of inherited sexual taboos...some of which no longer make sense and actually cause harm themselves. With respect to intergenerational sex--I don't know. I think there's enough risk involved so far as the emotional health of the child is concerned--from whatever cause--that we should certainly err on the side of caution until more is known. In any case, I don't see that a non-emotional examination of the issue hurts anything. Any issue. I can't think of a single instance when too much knowledge is a bad thing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.