echidna

No Fr.Andrew. Meintjies claims that the sex was consensual & there is little in the article to refute his claim. It is quite plausible that children can often be induced to engage in any type of negative activity, even activity which they will deeply regret later. This is inherent to the nature of childhood. You recognise the act as negative & yet it may well have been consensual at least in part, just as your scenario. You see your scenario omitted the longterm consequences as the child matures & better understands themselves. Maybe she grows up without lasting harm, but likely she will suffer lasting harm. Can this be considered nurturing ? No, not in any context. Criminal neglect at best, but most likely malicious Child Sexual Abuse.

The scenarios are quite equivalent, the only difference being that one is from the perspective of the child while the other is from the perspective of Meintjies.

Do you realise that date raping women under the influence of rohypnol is quite equivalent to your argument ? That the drug gives the illusion of consent, and that without necessarily a memory one can argue little lasting harm. Do you similarly suggest that drug-induced date rape is over-criticised within society ?

Mad Kally

You forgot to answer this part of my post FrAndrew. Have you ever actually looked at websites on this subject? Rationalization, minimalization and justification are the hallmarks Andrew. They especially love describing little scenarios. Whether you have acted on your scenarios I don't know. But I do know if you have you really should PM Ronin. However it's a very underreported crime. Do you have children? Grandchildren?

My older brother is 6'4" and was molested and raped by my dad as a young child. I was lucky he liked little boys. I wish you would walk up to him and tell him your sick little scenarios! I wonder if his face would soften over either one. He escaped to Canada. He didn't need anyone to tell him that what was happening was wrong.

His wife doesn't allow him to speak to me because she is afraid I might bring up our childhood. I wasn't the parent but I feel punished still because of what happened to my brother. I'm his sister, not the enemy. He doesn't even try to communicate with me anymore. It hurts.

My asshole father is dead and I'm glad. If he were alive he would probably be saying the same load of crap you are doing.

Ronin

Please provide evidence of this assertion.

What is more readily obvious is that children do not have the same capacity to make organized and formative decisions as adults ~ this is why we do not just give birth to them and drop them off into the woods.

There is a necessity to provide a control standard due to children's observable mentally undeveloped quality.

This 'control standard' can be qualified as a 'stigma' or a 'fear' by those promoting the idea that sex with the physically and mentally undeveloped child is beneficial.

Or it can be viewed as a required limit to ensure that the child is not manipulated by the authoritative and sexually active adult.

Society, by default, must give the benefit of any doubt to the child in this regard.

This is the most correct view in order to promote the individual liberty of an undeveloped and defenseless human.

You are quite free to disagree, however, this does explain what you and Fr. Andrew seem to perceive as a 'burden' upon children ~ while others express it as a 'best option' for the child in order to protect them from those actively seeking to justify their own sexual domination over another.

I disagree, based upon the observable lack of physical and mental development of the child.

Certainly ~

1). Does the perception that the undeveloped child lacks the ability to consent explain the 'social stigma and fear' that adult sexual contact with the child is never justified?

2). Does this particular explanation make this issue a valid, rational concept, free from a continued need for 'curious examination'? (<-- directed particulary to Fr. Andrew)

I ask this because Fr. Andrew seems to express continued amazement that society requires this limitation.

It is my hope that my offering has played some part in remedying this issue with him ~ despite any further disagreement he maintains or continues to promote.

Ronin

Because all people are emotionally attached to their positions, Fr. Andrew.

You now have the answer you seek regarding your curiousity about society and its visceral reactions to particular issues.

Hopefully, now that you have brought yourself to this understanding, this will prevent future topical conflagrations and satiate your stated curiousity.



I have given you the opportunity, under the assessment that circumcision is an equally significant violation and that there is no separation ~ now, pick up on this issue and provide the argument that such a violation is ever acceptable to you in order to justify child sexual abuse.

Seems like you 'copped out' on me here, Fr. Andrew.



Amen-Moses was able to fully comprehend and answer at least two of the three questions without any further clarification.

Perhaps now that I have made adjustments to the educational level of my particular inquiries you may have an easier time directly addressing them.

PS ~ you have also neglected to address the issues brought up in my previous post...I hope I have not overwhelmed you with too much insight.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Ronin
Please provide evidence of this assertion.

In some cultures the age at which this mental development is accepted as sufficient to enable informed consent is as low as 12 in others it is a high as 21. Do you really claim that this difference is due to some real physical development of is it purely an artifact if cultural conditioning?

What is more readily obvious is that children do not have the same capacity to make organized and formative decisions as adults ~ this is why we do not just give birth to them and drop them off into the woods.

But the question is how that capacity comes about, is it through education and experience or purely an artifact of physical growth? Is an educated 12 year old really less able to make informed choices than an uneducated 21 year old?

There is a necessity to provide a control standard due to children's observable mentally undeveloped quality.

At what point does mental development cease? From everything I have learned mental development is a process driven by education and experience so how can anyone gain this quality without learning about it and experiencing it?

This 'control standard' can be qualified as a 'stigma' or a 'fear' by those promoting the idea that sex with the physically and mentally undeveloped child is beneficial.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The 'control standard' is an artifact of those times when we were not sufficiently able to control pregnancy or disease and it was the reaction to these things that led to it's introduction in the 19th century (specifically it was the threat of syphilis that led to the law being passed raising the age from 9). Now people are using the 'control standard' to justify itself which is a circular argument, whilst also claiming that the age of physical maturity is in fact reducing. If the age of physical maturity is in fact reducing (I don't particularly buy that as a fact anyhow, I think it is just that perception is changing and that we are becoming more aware of something that was always there) then why aren't consent ages decreasing instead of increasing?

Or it can be viewed as a required limit to ensure that the child is not manipulated by the authoritative and sexually active adult.

An argument which again ignores any ability by 'children' to actually desire the activities to which the limits are applied and instead assumes that it is purely a 'sickness' of adults. Would it make any diference if it was a sexually active child and a sexually inactive adult? i.e what say you to the situation of a 13 year old prostitute and a 21 year old virgin client?

Society, by default, must give the benefit of any doubt to the child in this regard.

Agreed but this is already given by rape law. Unconsenting sexual activity is already prohibited under statutes so why ban a specific portion of the population (especially hot blooded randy teenagers) from an activity in which abuse (in the form of force or coercion) is already legislated against?

This is the most correct view in order to promote the individual liberty of an undeveloped and defenseless human.

Agreed, undeveloped (once you can come up with a decent definition of the term and a test for it) and defenceless humans should be protected from harm, I have no problems with that at all. What I have a problem with is situations in which there is no harm or in which the humans involved happen to be 'developed' (I think the 'defenceless' bit is a red-herring as it is infers force which is already covered by law).

You are quite free to disagree, however, this does explain what you and Fr. Andrew seem to perceive as a 'burden' upon children ~ while others express it as a 'best option' for the child in order to protect them from those actively seeking to justify their own sexual domination over another.

Why use words like 'domination'? If I have an enjoyable game of tennis with my son am I automatically engaging in sport domination?

I disagree, based upon the observable lack of physical and mental development of the child.

Define please, who gets to decide (or rather who 'should' get to decide) nature or society. If an 11 year old is sexually active why should they have to wait until they are 18 (or 14 or 16 or whatever) purely because you or any other 'adult' deems them insufficiently developed. (of course you already know that they won't wait will they! )

1). Does the perception that the undeveloped child lacks the ability to consent explain the 'social stigma and fear' that adult sexual contact with the child is never justified?

Yes. The 'perception' does in fact explain it, the problem is that the 'perception' comes from social stigma and fear!

2). Does this particular explanation make this issue a valid, rational concept, free from a continued need for 'curious examination'? (<-- directed particulary to Fr. Andrew)

If you think that the 'perception' is rational then yes, I don't based on personal experience, biology and watching the behaviour of others. Sometimes the perception matches reality and sometimes it doesn't, I would say most times it doesn't purely based on the fact that the average age of first sexual intercourse in the US is 15 whereas the legal limit is 18, doesn't this indicate that in reality the limit should be lowered, even if it is purely of the grounds of sensible allocation of resources of those attempting to enforce the law?

I ask this because Fr. Andrew seems to express continued amazement that society requires this limitation.

I don't think society 'requires' this limitaton, Bonobo's don't have it, the Greeks didn't have it, pre-christian polynesian cultures didn't have and even some modern cultures overlook it in specific situations where older cultural values are retained (like some European cultures in which an aunt or cousin is expected to give sexual experience to boys in their family). None of these suffer from not having this limitation.

If every human culture had the same fixed limitation based upon scientific testing of physical and mental development, i.e a sort of sex test like a driving test then I wouldn't have any concerns at all. In this day and age I cannot see why such a system could not be implemented not only for sexual issues but also for other "fixed" limits like age at which people can work or be unsupervised at home or watch a particular form of entertainment or vote or drink or etc etc.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

I'm not!

I try to avoid subjects to which I am emotionally attached, in this case it is purely an acedemic interest which comes out of my studies of mammalian behaviour (I would say animal behaviour but birds are difficult to study and reptiles and fish are boring ) and the evolutionary basis for those behaviours.

I am particularly interested in those areas in which social conventions change over time, such that prohibited acts become allowable or allowable acts become prohibited.

Amen-Moses

Fr.Andrew

(ronin~): Because all people are emotionally attached to their positions, Fr. Andrew.
(Fr Andrew): There you go with the categorical assertions again. It's my position (currently) that Jesus was a myth. But I'm hardly emotionally attached to it.

(ronin~): I have given you the opportunity, under the assessment that circumcision is an equally significant violation and that there is no separation ~ now, pick up on this issue and provide the argument that such a violation is ever acceptable to you in order to justify child sexual abuse.
(Fr Andrew): There is no justification for child sexual abuse, imo...and I've never said that there was, so am not prepared to argue for it. Now...why aren't those who encourage and participate in circumcisions being arrested for their violation of the soveriegnty, liberty and consent of a minor? And please don't say that it's because there's no prurient interest involved, because then I'm just going to ask, again, "what is it about sex"?

(ronin~): Amen-Moses was able to fully comprehend and answer at least two of the three questions without any further clarification.
(Fr Andrew): It's my position that Amen-Moses is either one smart dude or has had more experience with you than I have had. But I'm not emotionally attached to either of those. ;-)

Fr.Andrew

(echidna): No Fr.Andrew. Meintjies claims that the sex was consensual & there is little in the article to refute his claim.
(Fr Andrew): Excuse me?
(from the article): "Both boys — then 15 and 12 — testified that Meintjies' actions had disgusted them. The older boy, now 19, said he felt ashamed and did not have the courage to look at the photographs of him and Meintjies.
His young brother testified that Meintjies had never used a condom or lubricant when he was sodomised, and that the acts had caused him severe pain. He had not reported the incidents because Meintjies had threatened to harm him.
A primary school girl testified how disgusted she had been with Meintjies' sexual advances and the nude photos of himself and other people he had shown to her. Her two young nephews also testified about the pornographic films they used to watch with Meintjies.
One of the boys, who was only six at the time, told the court that Meintjies "was not a good uncle because he showed them bad things"."


(Echidna): The scenarios are quite equivalent
(Fr Andrew): They're nowhere near the same.

Ronin

I am speaking of the observable mental and physical development of the child and how a control standard is necessary.

We could engage each other tirelessly over which standard is acceptable by human society once puberty is reached, however, it does not preclude the necessity of that standard for the undeveloped body and mind (aka 'child').

For the sake of our discussion I was referencing the OP "man-boy love" and Fr. Andrew's hypothesis regarding a seven year old child.

A combination of physical and mental growth, education and then experience.

This should not seem that unreasonable.

By first formulating the educational basis of language, concepts of cause and effect, intent, motivations, etc., without these foundations, consent cannot be presumed to be present.

This is the reason that control standards are necessary.

I disagree that your assertion explains the control standard.

I find that it exists to prevent the authoritative abuse of a child that lacks the mental foundation of those elements I have provided you.

Again, we now approach the 'benefit of the doubt' caveat that I introduced as the best option.

The abuse can be viewed as purely an infringement of an authoritative adult violating the liberty of a child that lacks the ability to provide consent due to those factors that I have provided.

The control standard that we find in legislative statutes exists to provide the greater benefit to the greatest amount of children.

The alternative is that there is no standard and allow those incapable of providing consent to be manipulated by the authoritative adult.

From experience, 'society' finds this idea abhorrent.

I do not address the issue of randy teenagers other than to show how the physical and mental developmental issues I presented do effect the ability to consent.

Sorry to disappoint you, however, without omnipotence there is no decent definition that would satisfy everyone on an individual basis.

This is precisely why there should be a general 'control standard' to provide the benefit of the doubt to the child.

Personal sovereignty, integrity and liberty are not violated if you choose to dominate a child in a game of tennis...you may, however, effect his self esteem (a definitively separate topic all together).

Again, in order to provide the 'best option' control standard, human society must provide the decision and let any particular facts and circumstances play out in a formal, representative forum if the standard is violated.

Thank you for the affirmation.

As to your caveat ~ No, the perception comes from the best option standard.

It is 16 in my jurisdiction. I live in the U.S.

I don't think that is such a offending perception.

Now, based on your personal experience, biology and observations what is your opinion of a randy adult engaging in sexual contact with a seven year old?

Society 'requires' this limitation because it provides the best option to the physically and mentally undeveloped child for reasons I have already given.

A 'sex test' would be impractical as no one could then define at what age the test could be given.

This brings us back to the 'benefit of the doubt' standard that should be given those incapable of forming consent ~ by your post I would assume that those under 15 would fall into this category.

Ronin

I have already linked to the thread where you introduced your personal and emotional attachments to this issue, Amen-Moses, so I would classify you amongst us humans in this regard...affection for the bonobo notwithstanding.