Amen-Moses

Is it in the childs own good? Even if it means her being placed in an even worse situation?

Shit, I would have swapped my childhood with her in a heartbeat!

Amen-Moses

beth

This is total BS! I have been abused and I can tell you that I was very harmed. The real me died back then. I have had two suicide attempts and began writing suicidal poetry back when I was nine. I used to pray to God every night that he wouldn't let me die so that I would hurt anymore. I was in constant fear of being found out. A child that young cannot process the pleasure and feelings. It leaves them completely confused.

This early sex abuse left me open to be preyed upon as a teen. Do you think a thirty-four year old man and a fifteen/sixteen year old girl is wrong? I do. I didn't at the time. If adults cannot leave kids alone then they need to either be locked up or get chemical castration. I really don't give a damn about the feelings or rights of such predators. The kids are who count to me.

dangin

Wait, let's not be too hard on Fr. Andrew.

He has admitted that old women and pre pubescent girls grinding on each other is OK by him. (even though the auntie gave the girl plenty of nurturing which excludes this anecdote from his argument) Let's see what other "scenarios" are OK with him.

And he still need to provide an example of sexual contact being the only "nurturing" given to a child by an adult that is acceptable.

Fr.Andrew

(Helen): You presuppose that adult-child sex is a wonderful thing and then you write a story in which it is a wonderful thing.
(Fr Andrew): Please! I don't know what I've said to make you think that I presuppose anything--much less that "...adult-child sex is a wonderful thing...". I'm really getting a bit tired of people putting words in my mouth and expecting me to defend them.
I've said that a physical/sexual relationship between an adult and a child may, under some circumstances, be beneficial to the child. I believe that. I can imagine circumstances under which it may.
My story was an attempt to articulate such a scenario...nothing more.

(Helen): How about we call a spade a spade? Any old lady who allows and gets excited about being touched sexually by a seven year old is a pedophile and I hope the child is removed from her as soon as possible, for the child's own good.
(Fr Andrew): Why? What is there about a relationship between an adult and a child--a relationship that's beneficial to the child (that's part of the story, don't forget)--which would make you want to remove the child from that relationship? Aren't we looking out for the best interests of the child?


Btw--are you the same "Helen" who used to hang out on the old C.A.R.M board (5-6 years ago)? The one who cleaned my clock a time or two on some Biblical trivia? If so...how ya been? ;-)

Ronin

Pedophile ~

noun- A pedophile is someone who, over a period of at least 6 months, has recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years of younger). The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children.


The one fault with that definition is that in the mind of the pedophile, there is seldom any admission of any “significant distress” or “social impairment.” In nearly all instances, the pedophile does not regard his behavior or sexual attraction to children as harmful to anyone including the child.

It is also important to understand that merely being a pedophile is not a crime.

To have fantasies about having sexual contact with children or have a sexual attraction to children is not an illegal act in itself. It only becomes a crime when the pedophile or child molester acts on his or her impulses and actually molests a child. Another important fact to remember is that not all child molesters are classified as pedophiles. Many child molesters actually prefer sexual relationships with adults but if given the opportunity, they do molest children.

HelenM

I was basing that on the way you described the girl and old lady's sexual contact with one another. Your words implied it was wonderful to them.

I should have said you presupposed the sexual relationship between that adult and child in particular to be wonderful - implying that you at least are happy to theorize it could be wonderful in some cases - rather than generalizing further on what you might presuppose. I apologize for over-generalizing.

I apologize for that.

I should have said that's what you presuppose; but I still think it means your argument is circular.

Indeed we are and I do not believe it's ever in the best interests of a child to have an adult using them for sexual gratification.

I been fine but it's probably not me. I was on there briefly about 2 years ago but I only posted on two boards there - I think I posted mostly on the universalism one and a little on the atheist one if I recall correctly that there was such a board.

There's a Helen who posts on the Baptist Board - I don't know whether she's ever been on CARM though.

Oh, there was a Helen W, a very sweet Christian, that was on a board I posted on about 6 years ago - but I didn't post on CARM until 2 years ago.

Apart from that I haven't run into any other Helens on discussion boards

take care
Helen

The Other Michael

Hi folks,

Not too many months ago there were several "pedophilia" threads going that created massive amounts of uproar/outrage/ugliness on the boards as people hurled accusations/flames/invective back and forth.

The MF&P moderators will be quite, let me put that QUITE willing to lock this thread if it shows any signs of repeating that situation.

Please keep in mind in this thread that Fr. Andrew has stated In light of that statement I'm going to moderate on the assumption that for the purposes of this thread he is posing a hypothetical situation for discussion purposes.

Hypothetical situations are the bread and butter of MF&P, in which many people are willing to posit any number of un/likely scenarios for discussion purposes. Upon occasion these scenarios appear to be repugnant/offensive to one or more parties. If anyone has problem with a scenario, attack the idea, not the person offering it.

If you find a particular discussion upsets you to the point of not being able to discuss things in a calm and civil manner (I know that for some denizens of the boards rational is too much to ask for ) let me suggest that you save yourself some anguish and avoid those discussions.

On a personal note, in the time I've spent in MF&P I've gotten somewhat accustomed to entertaining several improbable hypothetical scenarios before tiffin, and we take tiffin pretty early in these (MF&P) parts, buckaroo.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

Mad Kally

Fr Andrew, you sure have added loads of details to your Mimi & Reenie scenario since the last time you posted it. No offense, I just remember it very clearly.

Bree

Please describe an "even worse" situation. I'm a little bit confused; it seems to me that whenever this type of discussion arises, the "and/or" to the child/adult sex situation is always somehow infinitely worse, although noone seems to define "worse" very clearly. Do you mean "worse" as in a foster home situation, or "worse" as in a child/adult sexual situation without love?

Bumble Bee Tuna

Can you people honestly not imagine a sexual relationship between an adult and a child that does not harm the child? I sincerely doubt that all youngsters involved in a sexual "abuse" situation are harmed. Maybe most, or "almost all', but certainly not "all".

That doesn't make it moral, of course, because if the chances are very high that it will cause harm, it is unreasonable to go through with it in the hopes of getting lucky.

I completely see Fr.Andrew's point and I think he's right that everyone just closes their minds when this sort of thing comes along.

Everyone is arguing about Fr.Andrew's hypothetical situation, saying the sexual contact wasn't necessary. But surely, both parties enjoyed the situation, didn't they? The only way to argue against it is to say that the contact had to have caused Mimi/Sadie psychological problems down the line, and the idea of sexual contact not causing psychological issues down the line is absolutely 100% impossible. I think that's a ridiculous idea.

-B