Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Suppose, as someone has suggested, a child not old enough to drive (say 15) initiates and engages in a sexual relationship with a mentally deficient adult (say 20)--is that abuse? By whom?
I still think you're relying too much on the cookie-cutter application of "abuse" and not taking into account the possiblility of different experiences by different people.
If there is no abuse intended and none experienced, why call it abuse?

Odemus

lol and you're relying on only the most bizzare and improbable scenarios that can't possibly transfer to normal everyday human experience.

You want to imagine a possible situation where a child can engage in sexual acts with an adult without it being abusive, and look what you're forced to resort to. A 15 year old with a retarded adult. If your journey of a thousand miles to free society of needless sexual taboos begins with a single step, you're missing legs.

noli

It wouldn't be abusive because you are talking about a minor involved with a disabled individual. Unfortunate yes, wrong perhaps, abusive under law...no.

I think you have a misapprehension of mental deficciecny. Such a person is not necessarily *retarded* in the sense that you would consider that individual at 20 the peer of a 15 year old.

Rather, a developmentally disabled individual has either plateued or is utterly lacking key abilities to process information necessary to progressing toward normal standards. This arrestment is usually well before puberty and can manifest itself as either profound or mild.

The 15 year old who would innitiate a relationship with a severely disabled individual is displaying the same social deficciency as any pedophile. Pedophiles (and I include pederasts in that catagory) are unable to form proper peer attachements and need to either manipulate or control the objects of their affections in lieu of entering the relationship on equal footing.

In any event.

Hard cases make bad law.

Discussing hypothetical extremities is not going to help us understand the ethos behind law, be it moral or civil or criminal. I have found that such efforts are merely for the elimniation or establishment of loopholes.

Which is why legal documents and this post is too long and too boring for normal reading. If you made it this far, for chrissakes go out and do something fun for awhile.

Diadectes

Are they? Where? What organisations are we talking about? Who is their spokesperson? Can you list any media appearances, dates and times of parades, or give examples of their official literature?

Purple Smartie

Let's say you're on the playground, minding your own business, and an older kid comes up from behind and smacks you on the head.

If it doesn't have a lifelong psychological effect on you, is it not still abuse? It was still wrong for the person to hit you; they had no way of knowing whether it would be damaging or not.

After 9 pages I guess I still don't really understand what the point of this thread is. I'm gay, I'm not a pedophile. My girlfriend is gay, she's not a pedophile. Neither of us over-eat or have sex with animals. We're adults, our relationship is equal and not about power or control.

I also wasn't aware that there was a particular technique which allowed adults to engage in sexual acts with children, WITH THE CONSENT THEY ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO GIVE, and completely eliminated the chance of any physical or psychological damage, yguy.

I've also noticed a trend in these posts that yguy doesn't like it when someone posts something that he doesn't want to hear... but he hasn't really made it clear exactly what he's hoping we'll say. Why don't you just clear it up, once and for all?

yguy

http://www.nambla1.de/

I got into an argument with a homosexual about this shortly after 9/11. He pointed out that NAMBLA hadn't updated its website since 2K. Evidently they have in the last few months been sufficiently reinvigorated to do that, at least.

yguy

This is a question best directed at Fr. Andrew, since my conclusion follows logically from his premise which states that there is adult-child sex which is not abusive.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're getting at. If you refer to my objections to having my position distorted, it seems to me I would be foolish not to.

Symphony X

so, yguy, have you stopped beating those puppy dogs yet?

yguy

A soon to be released study shows that many puppies have masochistic tendencies, and actually enjoy being beaten to death. I, having extrodinary sensitivity to their emotional needs, am able to discern which enjoy it and which don't. IOW, it's consensual, and the puppies don't consider it abuse.

JamesKrieger

yguy,

You failed to respond to my last post. I guess that means that you agree with it?

Just like if a homosexual fails to speak out against NAMBLA, that means he/she agrees with the organization?