Amen-Moses

I know this wasn't aimed at me but can I have a crack at them?

Originally posted by Ronin
1). Do these 'social stigmas and fears' override a child's inability to provide consent to sexual activity in any possible scenario?

The social stigmas and fears are the cause of the child's inability to provide consent. i.e We (that is adults in society) have decided that children cannot consent based on social stigmas and fears.

2). Other than merely saying that the activity is 'nurturing', is the perpetual lack of consent (due to lack of mental capacity) an inherently abusive violation of the child's liberty?

The lack of ability to even consider a child capable of consent is a far greater violation of the childs liberty.

3). Would the argument that a 'lack of consent' explain the 'social stigma and fear' that an adult having sexual contact with a child is never justified and make it a valid concept free from a repetitive need for 'curious examination'?

I can't see how it would, mind you if you reword that in english maybe it might make more sense.

Amen-Moses

Fr.Andrew

(ronin~): Why are you so emotionally sensitive to my observation, when you seem so quick to dismiss similar responses from others?
(Fr Andrew): To the extent that you imply a false motive to my interest in the subject, I was pretty quick to dismiss yours as well. I have no control over how often you do it, of course, but I can't let it pass by without pointing out what you're doing.
Speaking of being overly sensitive, you're pretty quick to deny any participation in busting people for consensual activity...even when I've made it a point to say that I wasn't talking about you in particular. Why is that, do you suppose?

I guess we've reached an impasse sure enough, ronin~. When you can forthrightly address what it is about intergenerational sex that separates it from circumcision, insofar as they both are violations of an individual's right to sovereignty, liberty and consent...let me know and we can pick this up again.

Ditto what Amen Moses said about speaking English. You're very difficult to understand sometimes.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I said that people who know me are used to me coming up with strange stuff--a question about intergenerational sex didn't ruffle their feathers.
Just more weird ol' Fr Andrew.

Mad Kally

ROFL, and we are supposed to believe that? Seven people thought nothing of it. No one even sucker punched you or told you to get the hell away from them?

Their faces softened when they heard the female version after hearing the male version of a man and a 7 year old first. Yeah right!

I believe that part. Just the word weird.

I may be a little weird myself (not to mention crazy) Fr Andrew, but I'm not stupid!

HelenM

Amen-Moses, children are by definition people who have yet to reach maturity. They are not yet fully developed. That has nothing to do with stigmas and fears; it's a fact; it's what they are.

When we invalidate their consent to certain things we are simply protecting them from situations where they are not mature enough to give consent, rather than allowing them to give it and then suffering negative consequences, because they gave it.

You have a son who is about seven, don't you? If he wanted to go someplace alone or with a stranger, would you let him? If he wanted to stay home alone, would you let him? If not then evidently you too do not consider the consent of a child sufficient, in some situations. You evidently agree that in some situations, a child's wishes are best overruled. Is that because you have been unable to rid yourself of enough stigmas and fears to let your son do whatever he wants? Or is it because he lacks the maturity to assess the dangers or appropriateness of certain things? Or for another reason? Or do you in fact let him do whatever he wants, all the time?

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): I find it hard to believe that anyone who is raped by anyone would be more upset about the skin color of the person who did it than that they were violated.
(Fr Andrew): Well...I don't know how old you are, or where you grew up, but anyone raised in the South during the 50's would have no trouble believing it.

(HelenM): I understand how societal stigmas and fears could have made things much worse for her.
(Fr Andrew): Me too.

(HelenM): If her husband divorced her only because of the skin color of the man who raped her, I think that was a very foolish decision.
(Fr Andrew): I don't say that's the only reason. My understanding, as a friend and neighbor, was that that was a large factor in their breakup. And not just his shame--she lapsed into a terrible funk over it and there resulted whatchacall "lack of consortium".

(HelenM): Anyway, I know something about stigmas and societal conditioning. I've experienced how people react to someone with a mental illness. I'm not unaware that humans suffer unnecessarily because of stigmas based on fear and ignorance.
(Fr Andrew): As Bree would say, :notworthy. My sentiments exactly.

(HelenM): But I think you want to go too far and remove that part of 'societal conditioning' which as Ronin pointed out, is based in the reality that some acts should be taboo because they are always harmful to other people.
(Fr Andrew): In the first place, I don't want to "remove" anything...I just want to discuss reasons for our societal taboos--sexual taboos particularly, because our sexual baggage is so pervasive, imo--with an eye toward convincing people that some of them are invalid and should be discarded for causing more harm than good. Especially to children. Adults have already been corrupted.
That was the gist of my opening arguments on this forum last fall and on the Cygnus board last spring...and I've tried not to waver from them. In both instances, however, the thread was hijacked by people who associated a desire for free thought regarding our sexual mores, with an endorsement of intergenerational sex and an attempt to justify it.

I digress...I think an honest, non-emotional review of the actual harm done by the sex part of intergenerational sex--as differentiated from the harm done by the societal guilt associated with it--a de-emphsis of the "sex" part, and more concentration on the "abuse" part of CSA, if you will--may result in fewer traumatized kids. And fewer hung-up adults.
With respect to ronin~'s argument--I don't think that's it, but I could be wrong. Hard to tell. I think ronin~ knows that intergenerational sex (at least) is not "always" harmful to other people. Murder is an example of something that's "always" harmful to other people.

(HelenM): I do not believe society can benefit from a move from "it's always wrong for adults to have sex with children" to "hey, it might be beneficial - so let's try it!"
(Fr Andrew): I agree. I hope, by this time, that you understand that.


(HelenM): But....setting all that aside, here you have made the mistake again of failing, seemingly, to see the difference between a child and an adult - because you give an adult-adult sex example to try to illustrate your questions about adult-child sex.
(Fr Andrew): Actually, the example was to illustrate how irrational sexual taboos can make a bad situation worse.

(HelenM): Why do you want to impute adult sexuality to children?
(Fr Andrew): I'm not totally sure what you mean here, but if I understand you correctly I don't want to do that.

(HelenM): Was it your own childhood experience that children are as sexual as adults?
(Fr Andrew): No...I don't think so. But I suppose it would depend on what age you're talking about when you say "children". I was swapping spit with Mary Lou Maxey in the fifth grade.

(HelenM): Is it the experience of children you know?
(Fr Andrew): I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but I think that children are becoming more sexually aware and active at an earlier age. That's based on what I read or see on the tube, though...I really don't know many children.

Thanks again for the information on quotes--I tried a bit to get it for this post, but I think I need more work. I'll try to figure it out tonight.
Is my way really that confusing?

Fr.Andrew

(Mad Kalley): "...we are supposed to believe that?"
(Fr Andrew): As I said before--what you believe doesn't interest me.
Tell you what, though...here's where I hang out the most. These people actually know me--we are a physical as well as a vitual community--go there, if you like, and ask how many would think it out of character were I to propose that scenario for their consideration.
I may have, actually--I don't remember.

Mad Kally

You said it was 7 people who you ran into in one day. What makes you think I want to see where you hang out. <shudder> I was just calling you on your lie. IMO of course.

Rationalization, justification and minimization. Hallmarks of what?
Sorry I posted, my skin is crawling. I don't know why I read things that make me sick? Morbid curiosity perhaps? A seven year old! Geeze

Amen-Moses

Originally posted byHelenM
Amen-Moses, children are by definition people who have yet to reach maturity. They are not yet fully developed. That has nothing to do with stigmas and fears; it's a fact; it's what they are.

Actually the reason they are not "mature" is that we have not yet taught them the stigmas and fears. This is why it is a circular argument, I know it's circular from trying to answer my own childrens questions. My daughter says she is moving to Canada when she is fourteen so she can "get laid". Damn they grow up quick.

It is like earlier when someone used the term "informed consent" to try and put across the same idea. If the child is "informed" does it make it OK? Obviously not so it can't have anything to do with being informed or not.

Answer this question, how does somebody reach "informed consent", i.e how do they get to the point at which they are able to make their own mind up about matters. Is it through education, experience or just age? What magical process of aging suddenly turns an uninformed "whatever-year-old" to and "informed" "whatever-year-old-plus-one-day"?

When we invalidate their consent to certain things we are simply protecting them from situations where they are not mature enough to give consent, rather than allowing them to give it and then suffering negative consequences, because they gave it.

Nope, I teach my children to cross the road safely, I don't deny them the "consent" to cross the road alone until a specific age and then let them run wild, that is just a plain stupid way of going about things.

You have a son who is about seven, don't you?

You mean the wanker?

If he wanted to go someplace alone or with a stranger, would you let him?

He goes to Gymnastics every week, at present one of the family will walk with him but in a few years he will go alone. The decision as to when that occurs is more to do with him being visible to traffic than any fear I have of his safety alone, i.e it is practical based on the fact that I have difficulty seeing small children when I am driving so I assume everyone else does. Tammy has been going to school alone since she was about 7 or 8 and I drop her off at a strangers house for an hour every week for piano lessons. Christopher is in Gymnastics for an hour and a half with complete strangers too.

If he wanted to stay home alone, would you let him?

Nope, because it is illegal in this country to do so. I have no idea why it is illegal, especially since the age is 14 (I think) which seems a bit stupid. It is perfectly legal for a 13 year old to wander the streets alone but not for them to sit in front of their own telly? Daft laws.

If not then evidently you too do not consider the consent of a child sufficient, in some situations. You evidently agree that in some situations, a child's wishes are best overruled. Is that because you have been unable to rid yourself of enough stigmas and fears to let your son do whatever he wants?

Actually yes, I was told that it was too dangerous to allow Tammy to go to church on her own because of all the perverts that hang out there so I had to tell her she couldn't go (it was the social services who told me btw) so in that case it was stigmas and fears. If I had let her go then social services could have taken her away from me, I was quite happy for her to go!

Or is it because he lacks the maturity to assess the dangers or appropriateness of certain things? Or for another reason? Or do you in fact let him do whatever he wants, all the time?

He pretty much does what he wants around the house, if he wants to go out then one of the family will take him unless they are busy in which case he has to wait. When he is old enough to reach the key hole and look over the bonnet of an SUV then he can go out pretty much at will. The only rule we have is that whenever someone goes out they either tell everyone else or write it on the notice board, that way if there is a fire or if we are cooking a meal we know how many people are in the house.

Amen-Moses

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): You obviously want very badly to think me a liar. Can't say why. Can't do anything about it.
That's "Jeeez", btw. ;-)