Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daleth · 07-11-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
I'd also like to hear the criticisms of anyone who thinks I am treating Fr. Andrew unfairly. Someone start a complaint thread about me for this. I think I am totally within the boundaries here. Particularly with the excellent litany of history that Ronin has done such a service to provide.

Based on the history, you seem perfectly reasonable here to me. Were the OP his first post, that'd be something different.

Quote:

And I am not a moderator in this forum (the title follows each of us around) but if one more poster complains about me I win a free OS upgrade so please feel free.

Er, wait, I mean you are a horrible terrible nasty moderator. Bad! Bad!

Dal

ex-xian · 07-11-2003, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
In any case, I have said time and again (I really thought you'd kept up):
a) I am not interested in sex with children.
b) I have no use for abusers, molesters or rapists
c) I do not advocate intergenerational sex

Taking this at face value, which I will do since I've never discussed anything with you before, your OP only applies to childhood experimentation. Correct?

Also, why do you not advocate intergenerational sex?

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 02:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dangin
[B]But they don't always hurt kids. In fact some kids like it.
(Fr Andrew): Abuse always hurts kids. The question is: is intergenerational sex always abuse?

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
But I have studies that say it helps some people. Studies to the contrary be damned.

(Fr Andrew): I don't know where you found such studies. The closest I can come is one where some adults who experienced intergenerational sex as children view it in a positive way. I don't know that it "helped" them.

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
Your question in the OP is ABOUT child sexuality.

(Fr Andrew): Posed to adults.

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin f you are being genuine it should be about adults screwing up kids.

(Fr Andrew): It is.

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
I'd also like to hear the criticisms of anyone who thinks I am treating Fr. Andrew unfairly.

(Fr Andrew): No one has said that you are treating me unfairly. I've said that you're belligerent and a poor reflection on the IIDB.
That's obvious in your remarks.

dangin · 07-11-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
I hate to see anyone in pain. I haven't said that socio-religious condemnation is the only reason behind the guilt and shame experienced by some people for their youthful sexual experimentation. I think it's high on the list, but I don't know if it's the only reason.

It pains me further to see we agree on something.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
I'm not attacking religious people, silly--I'm attacking religion. And it's a moral issue, best I can tell. Usually, it's hard to separate the two. I think I'm in the right place.

Yes, it is the religion, all by itself, that is confusing children. Not the individual members of that religion and their actions dealing with their kids.

You are gaining nothing in your "quest to rid the world of religious condemnation of sex here. You are not even honing your argument. This needs to be focused at the proponents of the religion. They are the one's meddling with the kid's minds.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew

Or you can complain about me to a moderator.

No need. Do you really think you can start another thread here without everyone knowing it? We mods know when a sparrow falls, we certainly know when you host a repeat performance of the same tired tripe.

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
Taking this at face value, which I will do since I've never discussed anything with you before, your OP only applies to childhood experimentation. Correct?

(Fr Andrew): Thank you. Yes.

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
Also, why do you not advocate intergenerational sex?

(Fr Andrew): 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.

dangin · 07-11-2003, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
I don't know where you found such studies. The closest I can come is one where some adults who experienced intergenerational sex as children view it in a positive way. I don't know that it "helped" them.

I didn't, I was paraphrasing you.

HelenM · 07-11-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
Also, why do you not advocate intergenerational sex?

He might not advocate it but he doesn't necessarily agree it always ought to be stopped - here's a post of his from the thread 35 and 7, page 3 where he wrote about a hypothetical intergenerational sexual relationship:

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
Mimi was seven years old and lived in Flat Rock, half-way between Plain View and Christmas Knob on County Rd 123...in a trailer with her mom and dad. Their nearest neighbor was 1/2 a mile away as the crow flies on County Rd 9--across two creeks and some pretty rough terrain.
Sadie's father, Tom, helps neighbors with their wood when he's able, but hasn't been much good since the "incident" in '98--mostly he eats Paxil, drinks coffee flavored brandy and passes out.
Sadie's mom, Esther, works at Brown's Cabins--a "motel" in Plain View. Her income is from the truck drivers that answer her CB call and wander over from I32 to visit her and/or Phyll, the other lady who works at Brown's Cabins...Esther's ride to work and her smack dealer.
Esther and Phyll share more than a profession and a drug addiction it turns out (particularly since the "incident")--and so Esther is sometimes gone, unannounced, for days, or weeks, at a time. Mimi was pretty much on her own...no human contact. No love, no comfort, no attention. She cried a lot. It'd been like that all of her life.

Mimi's great-aunt Reenie (widow of Tom's Uncle Will) lives in Plain View...still in the two room house that she and Will had built with their own hands and moved into when they were married. No kids.
Will died of Black Lung in '86 and Reenie has made do on his miner's pension and what vegetables she can grow. No car. No phone. No pool. No pets. She keeps the house neat and tidy and reads the Bible every day.
Aware of Mimi's circumstances, and being a caring (and lonely) woman, Reenie had begged Esther for years to let Mimi come live with her. One day Mimi showed up in her dooryard and said that Esther and Phyll had dropped her off at the head of the road.

Reenie spends long hours rocking Mimi and singing to her. Hugging her and holding her. Making her feel wanted and cared for. They bond quickly...the lonely old lady and the abandoned child. The quality of both their lives increases greatly.
Mimi officially sleeps on the sofa, but often crawls into the old double bed with Reenie--as kids do. Especially neglected kids. There's something about going to sleep in someone's arms...and, should you awake in the middle of the night, knowing someone's there.

Now, some would say that things should stop here, and perhaps so...but it was not to be.

One night it happened. There was a thunderstorm and, as they snuggled in the bed together, as Reenie was comforting her, she realized that Mimi was masturbating against her leg. Mimi knew that something was going on, but had no idea what. All she knew is that it gave her a pleasure and release she'd never known...and that she was laying in the arms of a woman she had grown to love, tingling and exhausted.
She asks. An honest woman, Reenie says that it's something that people do sometimes by themselves and sometimes married couples do it together...and tries to change the subject. But Mimi is still curious and asks if Reenie and Uncle Will had done that in bed. Reenie says yes...they had. Mimi asks if Reenie doesn't miss it because it feels so good. Reenie says yes...she misses it a lot. She sometimes does it to herself, but it's not the same.
The next time they're in bed together, feeling sorry for her aunt, Mimi slips her knee against Reenie's crotch and the old woman, relenting to a flood of emotions she thought she'd never experience again, allows her niece to bring her to orgasm.

I can easily see how things may lead one to the other in this situation--with Mimi and Reenie having a long, caring, loving, non-abusive relationship...to no one's harm.

I can also see the County child welfare people getting wind of the arrangement, yanking Mimi out of the only loving home she'd ever known and putting her into a foster care situation from which she emerges, years later, with a life-time of debilitating guilt instilled in her for having violated one of societies sexual taboos.
And I can see Reenie being hounded by the state on child sexual abuse charges...and blowing her brains out one afternoon with Uncle Will's old 12-gauge.

This whole scenario seems as weird and unrealistic to me now as it did when I first read it. Quite honestly, I wonder how in touch with the real world someone is who speculates this kind of behavior happening between a seven year old and her great aunt. (Unless the great aunt is a pedophile and the seven year old has previously been sexually abused by adults)

Helen

Fr.Andrew · 07-11-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin

Yes, it is the religion, all by itself, that is confusing children.

(Fr Andrew): No...it's the influence of religion on the parents of the children that's confusing them. IMO

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin

This needs to be focused at the proponents of the religion. They are the one's meddling with the kid's minds.

(Fr Andrew): Agree...that's what I'm trying to do. Surely there's some spillover from the religion forums. Theists must come here to lurk and post. I know HelenM does. And yguy.

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin

No need. Do you really think you can start another thread here without everyone knowing it? We mods know when a sparrow falls, we certainly know when you host a repeat performance of the same tired tripe.

(Fr Andrew): I don't understand a word of that. I haven't expressed a desire to start a new thread without everyone knowing it. What in the world are you talking about?

dangin · 07-11-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM

This whole scenario seems as weird and unrealistic to me now as it did when I first read it. Quite honestly, I wonder how in touch with the real world someone is who speculates this kind of behavior happening between a seven year old and her great aunt. (Unless the great aunt is a pedophile and the seven year old has previously been sexually abused by adults)

Helen

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 · 07-11-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
"He might not advocate it..."
Helen

(Fr Andew): Exactly. I don't advocate it and never have.
I made the statement that I could imagine a scenario in which intergenerational sex may benefit a child. I was asked to articulate such a scenario--and Mimi's story was the result.
I appreciate that you find it weird and unrealistic and I sympathize. Believe me, I find a lot of what's articulated by theists to be pretty weird and unrealistic...and I often speculate on just how out of touch with the real world these people are.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.