Amen-Moses

There isn't, its all in your head.

If I discuss the reasons why the IRA exist am I justifying terrorism? If I argue against capital punishment am I justifying serial murder?

Amen-Moses

Fr.Andrew

(cjack): I am still trying to figure out why there is an effort on this board to justify sexual relations with small children...anyone care to jump in on that one???

(Fr Andrew): There isn't that I've seen. On this or any other board. There has been an attempt to twist something I said to make it sound that way, though. Here's what I said:
"I can imagine circumstances under which a physical relationship with an adult neighbor or friend may be the only source of nurturing that a child gets..."
To those interested, the circumstances that I imagined as I wrote that, were:
"...a kid living in a trailor in Nasty Gulch WVA or some such place with a single, careless, neglectful mother and no source for compassion or love."
All my remarks on the subject are in two closed threads on the Misc Forum, should anyone care to read them in context.
The notion that sex between children and adults is always, in every case, harmful to the child, is simply incorrect...at least according to what I've read <a href="http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.just-well.dk/rotterd.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

To anyone with information which would contradict the findings in those reports, I would be interested in reading what you have to say (and any reports you can link--hopefully easy to read) because I'm interested in learning--always.
I'm not interested in being lied about or having my words parsed and analyzed by anyone hoping to make me a monster.
I'm not interested in sex with children (actually, I'm not much interested in sex anymore) have never been inclined in that direction and have nothing invested in a defense of pedophilia or inter-generational sex.
If that's not good enough:
Pbbbbt!
And I'm way past the age when "Because I said so!" is a valid answer.


I go on record as preferring that a neglected child be comforted non-sexually whenever possible. If not possible, however, I'd like to see a neglected child comforted. Not "abused", not "harmed", not "used", not "exploited"--comforted.
I do not advocate the relaxation or removal of any laws--I do advocate an open-minded, non-emotional review of a prejudice that, like others associated with sex, may--just may--have no rational basis.

It's a long standing prejudice, though. Even in ancient times when homosexual relationships between grown men and boys ("who had not begun to shave") were accepted and considered proper by many, there was a clear distinction drawn between that (pederasty)--and the sexual use of children (pedophilia).
In the same breath, however, there are social taboos against the sexual use of slaves--which may indicate that it was the taking advantage of someone defenseless and vulnerable, rather than the sex itself, which society found troubling.

JohnV

Under what circumstances would it be possible for an adult to "comfort" a child sexually, but impossible for the adult to comfort the child non-sexually?

cjack

My thought exactly.

For that matter, under what circumstances could it possibly be better to comfort a child in a sexual manner?

"Well, your honor, the boy seemed sad, and a hug just didn't cheer him up, so..."

Bryan Mc

Damn! Beat me to it. I can't wait for this answer.

Vesica

That is NOT the issue here...The issue is the idea that children are all sexually unaware and 'holy innocents'. That idea is societal and learned...It is not universal and not evident historically until around the 16th century. This is not about abuse or mis-use of children...The issue is when do children (legally 'minors') gain the right to do as they wish with thier own bodies? When do those bodies cease to be the property of thier parents?


Point taken...and I think puberty is a good cut-off. However, there are some 7-year olds with menses. The average age used to be 12-13....in modern societies 8 or 9 is becoming common. 7 is unlikely so I can agree with your point. But does your answer change for a 9 year old who is biologically sexually mature? Can that individual be in a consenual relationship?

Perhaps we should require a level of emotional maturity...of course that would prevent some 30-year-olds I know from getting any.

Vesica

I also assume that 15 and thirty would be okay according to the arguements here??

Valmorian

</strong>

It's also a blinding assumption. It may be true in many cases, but it isn't by NECESSITY.

MadMordigan

I am still trying to figure out why there is an effort on this board to justify sexual relations with small children...anyone care to jump in on that one???

a) Cause we are all a bunch of monsters looking for an excuse to fuck our friend's little daughters.

b) Cause we are willfully blind and uncaring about 7 year olds being abused by adults.

c) Cause we are reasonable human beings who can approach a hypothetical moral situation with dispassion and can treat it like a puzzle.

Given the visceral reactions most of us have to the idea of a child being abused, it isn't suprising that this issue makes us angry. What is suprising is that this one issue is the only one that consistantly results in the participants being accused of falling in the first two categories.

cjack

Yes, it does make me angry.

When someone attempts to make the argument that sexual relations between adults and children either are not harmful or could be beneficial (!), I see that as inching towards a justification of pederasty.

When I see someone inching towards a justification of pederasty, I can't help but question their motivation. Is this unreasonable?

If this were an in-person conversation amongst friends, and one guy kept saying "well, sex with children isn't ALWAYS bad..." wouldn't you wonder why he said it?

Would you want him around your kids?