RichardMorey

Yeah, whatever. This is an old argument that will not be settled here.
Read it yourself.
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/Rind/Rind1998.html
It would help if you said WHY you think I must be kidding, otherwise I don't know whether you didn't understand me in the first place or whether you have a substantive counterpoint.
Did I say every instance of coersion was immoral? No. You seem to want a full accounting of my moral system, and this is not the place to give it. What I said above suffices for this conversation.

Quote:

And according to people like Pat Kelly, adult-child sex is not necessarily coercive either.

See my response to him/her.[/b][/quote]
I'm not sure. All I can say is what the research indicates. If you want to, do your own research, find some research that supports your point of view, or attack methodological issues in the current research. Like I said though, even if it does not cause psychological harm there are reasons to find it immoral.
Yes, it can. Clearly you miss the interaction between coersion and harm - coercing someone to do something potentially harmful is immoral (if you ask ME, which you did).
Generally laws are grounds for conviction, not studies.
Consider this a preemptive demand. But then, it doesn't matter. Coersion and physical harm which can result make psychological harm an unnecessary condition.
Morality is dependant upon a lot of things. Like I said, this is not the place for a full accounting of my moral system - most of the things I said above regarding morality (harm, coersion, undesired social pressure) would be agreed upon by many people, including, I suspect, you. Of course, they interact in different ways and with other things in complicated ways. None of them are either necessary or sufficient by themselves - morality is more complex than that.

yguy

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/Res...rind_sora.html

For the common-sensically impaired who need empirical data to confirm the obvious:

Comparisons with Studies Using Equal or Superior Methodology
A review of the empirical literature examining the long-term consequences of CSA call into question the validity of many of Rind et al.’s (1998) key findings and conclusions. For example, Rind et al.’s conclusion about the relative harmlessness of CSA conflicts with the findings of three previous meta-analyses of the relationship between CSA and maladjustment (e.g., Jumper, 1995; Neuman, Houskamp, Pollock, & Briere, 1996; Oddone & Genuis, 1996). In addition, little support can be found for Rind et al. conclusion that the significant relationship they found between CSA and maladjustment was likely spurious due to confounding between CSA and family environment. Table 1 summarizes the results of large scale representative studies, prospective studies, and co-twin studies using nonclinical samples. These studies, which are considered the gold standard in terms of validity and reliability, almost uniformly reported significant associations between reporting CSA and a wide variety of mental, physical, behavioral problems which persist even after controlling for family dysfunction.


Here's an interesting thought from Mr. Morey's link:


The current president of the American Psychological Association, Martin Seligman, wrote of his positive experiences at age 9 in the 1950s with a newspaper man he met each day on the way to school. The contact that occurred between them, as Seligman noted, would today be labeled child sexual abuse.
But, for him, it was not abuse. This was the first adult who took him seriously, who was willing to discuss the issues of the world with him (gotten from the newspapers he was selling). Seligman reflected that, had authorities intervened and questioned him about the man, had his parents overreacted, had they forced him to see a therapist who insisted to him that he was a victim, then the whole experience would have become quite negative, when in fact it remains positive for him to this day.

Sure gives you loads of confidence in the competence of the APA leadership, huh?


Actually, it is quite obvious to me by now that it wouldn't help at all.

Nothing in that response supports the idea that adult-child sex is coercive. All you did was say that it was always the adult who initiated it. Mr. Seligman OTOH didn't see anything coercive about his fling with the newspaper man.

But studies can influence legislation, which ultimately provides the grounds for any conviction.

So if no physical harm results from a rape, there's no problem?

No, actually, it's more simple than that, which is why incarcerated child molesters are held in such contempt by fellow prisoners who are only murderers. They know intuitively that child molesters are the lowest thing on the face of the earth. Too bad your education has robbed you of the ability to see the obvious.

RichardMorey

Lots of people know lots of (contradictory) things intuitively. It is up to people who think rationally to demand more. I can see, however, that there is no reason to continue this conversation, because we obviously have different standards of evidence. If my education has "robbed" me of my reliance on "intuition" that's great - I consider that a compliment.

Pat Kelly

I understand where you are coming from with this statement and when I look back upon my own preteen years I cannot recall any specific incident when I found myself sexually attracted to an adult. Actually I can remember thinking of adults behaving sexually with one another as rather gross and repulsive. Nevertheless, I like you grew up in a society where sex between adults and children was frowned upon to say the least, it is difficult to assess how or if things might have been different if we had grown up in a more sexually open society.

I can tell you regarding the sex that was considered acceptable, as a boy of about 10, I am sure I would have responded very positively to an attractive 20 year old woman attempting to seduce me into sex. I doubt it would have taken very much to seduce me. It is unquestionably true I would never have approached such a girl for sex because the though of engaging in sex with a 20-year old girl would never have seen even a remote possibility. For similar reasons, I never attempted to climb into the pilot’s seat of a 747 either. But just because I may not have come up with the idea myself first does not in any way mean I might not have enjoyed such an encounter if someone else had proposed it to me. True I would have been a little lost about engaging in things like intercourse but I would have thoroughly enjoyed exploring that mound I had seen many times protruding from between girls legs as well as the other two thing protruding a little higher up. I would have been very keen to explore sex with someone older and I think the same holds true for all children who have not yet been indoctrinated with all the social stigmas that makes sex so disgusting, immoral, dirty and so on if it is not practiced according to strict partnering rules.

I agree with most of what you have written and you cool rational approach to a highly emotional topic deserves to be acknowledged. On the matter of research into establishing valid answers to questions of psychological harm resulting from adult/child sex is should be recognized that the starting point for such research should not be the status quo of currently accepted public opinion. Just because the public has come to accept that early sex is psychologically harmful to children does not mean research should be aimed at disproving public myths. Research goals should not be to establish that early sex does not cause psychological damage but to establish that it does. There is a big difference between the two and I have little doubt it would not take too much research to conclude sex is a natural part of being human and that we do far more damage to children restricting their natural sexuality than any good that could possibility come from restricting it.

Please do not feel obligated to respond to any of this because I concede to the majority of your points and most of what I have written was directed towards others unable to grasp such concepts.

yguy

Fine. I take this as a tacit admission that the Rind study you cited is worthless.

Pat Kelly

The current president of the American Psychological Association, Martin Seligman, wrote of his positive experiences at age 9 in the 1950s with a newspaper man he met each day on the way to school. The contact that occurred between them, as Seligman noted, would today be labeled child sexual abuse.

But, for him, it was not abuse. This was the first adult who took him seriously, who was willing to discuss the issues of the world with him (gotten from the newspapers he was selling). Seligman reflected that, had authorities intervened and questioned him about the man, had his parents overreacted, had they forced him to see a therapist who insisted to him that he was a victim, then the whole experience would have become quite negative, when in fact it remains positive for him to this day.

I find it interesting that you seem somehow able to dismiss out of hand anyone's firsthand account of how sex affected them. It is like you trying to tell me I like peas better than corn. Your contradictory conclusion that Martin Seligman could not have possibly experienced a positive sexual experience with an adult at the age of 9 raises an important question of who we should believe. You, who has no real knowledge of Mr. Seligman or the events he spoke of; or Mr. Seligman himself who was no only a witness to the events but a principal party. I tend to put just a bit more credence in Mr. Seligman’s testimony where yours would not even be allowed in any court I have ever heard of. Sounds like hot air and fluff to me but some people will say anything.

yguy

I'm afraid you misunderstand. I have no doubt that he considers the experience positive. Such a deep-seated delusion harbored by someone wielding as much power as he does ought to give anyone with lick of common sense considerable pause, as he has obviously lost his rudder. He doesn't know what good is.

But of course this is wasted on people with no moral center like yourself.

Pat Kelly

So the basis upon with you dismiss Mr. Seligman’s claims as delusional is rooted in morality? Let me see if I can put this one together and draw some relationship between delusions and morality. Mr. Seligman’s is delusional because he is not as moral as you are? No that does not work. You are more moral than Mr. Seligman because he must have lied about what happened to him when he was a child because his account of the events are different from what you believe they should be. No, that does not work either. OK let’s try this one. If Mr. Seligman did have a positive experience with a pedophile when he was nine that must mean he was a pedophile himself all along and that is why he accounts for his personal experience differently than you thereby making him immoral by default by the fact of his pedophilia. We might be getting closer. How about this? You know so much about everyone else that you feel you are the true and only arbitrator of wisdom and everyone’s else’s morality. Ok. I think we’ve got it. Delusion and morality all in one sentence.

Now let’s explore your use of the words “deep-seated” and “lost rudder” as they relate to your psychoanalytical skills to assess the mental competency of someone related to morality… Then again, let’s don’t and just say we did.

yguy

Some things are just painfully obvious - just like it's obvious to some of us here that you, Mr. Kelly, are a snake.

Sorry mods. It had to be said.

Pat Kelly

Not to worry vguy I consider the source and have been called much worse. Also, you are obviously aware of the tact that says if you cannot defeat the message go after the messenger. Your position regarding Mr. Seligman was irrational, unfounded, unsubstantiated and only conveyed your obvious willingness to draw wild conclusion out of nothing but thin air. I called you on it and if it sits wrong with you well that is just too bad.