Loren Pechtel

The sex normally doesn't. Force does, the manipulation invovled very well might, the social stigma very well might.

yguy

So if there's no force and no manipulation, no problem? Where did you get this idiotic idea?

Loren Pechtel

It wouldn't cause psychological harm in the case you refer to. It might cause physical harm, though--STD's or pregnancy.

With a younger child it almost certainly does involve manipulation, anyway.

RichardMorey

If you make the claim that molestation causes psychological problems, you have to back it up with research. There is actually research that has been conducted that has found no evidence of a connection. See Rind et al 1998.

Of course, this paper is controversial, to say the least, but the data say what the data say. Keep in mind that this paper (and any other scientific article) says nothing about MORALITY.

If you make the claim that sexual abuse causes problems, you have to back it up. And anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

I believe that sexual abuse is immoral - but the science doesn't support the position that it causes problems.

yguy

Where is the research showing that rape causes problems?

If it doesn't cause problems, what's wrong with it?

yguy

Back it up. Betcha can't.

RichardMorey

Your first question is irrelevant to my post. Your second question is a good one, though, and worthy of discussion.

Of course, this depends on how you decide what is moral or not. Because morality is constructed by society and individuals, if you ask that question to different people, you will get different answers.

If you ask ME, I will say I was just pointing out that [research shows] it does not cause psychological problems. That something causes psychological problems is not a necessary condition for something to be immoral (though it may be a sufficient condition). In fact, MOST things we consider immoral do not cause psychological damage (theft, murder, lying, cheating, etc).

In this case, I believe child molestation is wrong because:
1) It is coercive. Children do not think about sex, generally, and to coerce them into it is wrong, because coersion is wrong.

2) Because of the social problems and pressures that can follow. These may not cause psychological problems, but they are very real and undesireable, and to force them on a child who has no power and who probably has not learned to cope with such things is wrong.

3) It can cause physical harm. Children are not fully developed, and, especially with girls, can be harmed by premature sexual contact. Early sexual activity is associated with higher rates of cervical cancer later in life and, if they get pregnant, death can result.

My final point is that just because the research FAILED to find that child molestation causes psychological problems doesn't mean that it doesn't. But if you want to make a positive claim, you have to back it up with evidence. Regardless, the immorality of the act is not dependant upon its causing psychological problems.

yguy

Actually, that is an illusion. Morality is recognized by society and codified into law, but society doesn't construct it.

What, according to this research, are the criteria for determining what constitutes a "problem"? No suicide or catatonic schizophrenia, no foul?

You've got to be kidding.

Sending a child to bed early for bad behavior is also coercive. Is it therefore immoral?

And according to people like Pat Kelly, adult-child sex is not necessarily coercive either.

Then you would agree with Kelly that the stigma associated with intergenerational sex is the problem rather than the act itself? If so, all we need to do is get rid of the stigma, and pedophilia becomes OK, right?

So can skateboarding.

Assuming, of course, that the studies which indicate this are valid, why would we expect the average pervert to be aware of them, or even to believe them? If he honestly believes the studies are wrong, and can verify that he holds said belief in good faith (as I imagine Pat Kelly does) what grounds are there for a conviction?

Come now - you've heard of save sex, haven't you?

If I state that rape causes problems, somehow I doubt you will demand any empirical evidence.

Then you have failed to show what exactly it IS dependant upon.

Pat Kelly

Vacillating and changing concepts of immorality are certainly not a good gauge of harm either, especially those connected with sex. Most of the perceived harm related to sex that causes people to see it as immoral can be traced to harm against particular ideas and a perceived need to defend those ideas. Though most instances of sex result in no direct harm, the willingness of those involved in “immoral” sex to challenge accepted norms does indeed undermine and harm the ideas their actions challenge.
This assumption is itself wrong and no expert in the field or research ever done on childhood sexuality would back up your claim. Children think about sex frequently and act upon those thoughts with sexual behaviors as well. Though it is true most children do not think about sex as often as most adults this fact should not be viewed as meaning children never think about sex or that they are being coerced when they do. Children are capable of enjoying sex in many of the same ways adults do and there is no rational reason to assume they are unaware of the potential pleasure they can derive from sex or that their experiencing pleasure from sex is anymore harmful to children than it is to adults. In spite of public illusions that attempt to paint children as passive when it comes to sex, reality clearly shows they are anything but passive and in fact very active. Adult desires to see childhood sexuality in a passive light filled with illusions of purity and innocence do not have the power to change the reality of childhood and the sexuality that is very much a part of it. It only keeps us from the truth with a twisted and tangled misunderstanding of childhood.
So what you are saying here is the logical response to this research is to assume that it does? Such a response appears more related to defending particular ideas than any genuine quest for the truth. Do we want to progress forward and expand the number of our accurate understandings or do we want to halt everything here and assume all we now know must somehow be correct? It is an irrational act to defend and always far more logical to question.

RichardMorey

If I understand what you are saying, it is in no way in conflict with what you quoted above. Like I said, harm and morality are two separate ideas.

Quote:

This assumption is itself wrong and no expert in the field or research ever done on childhood sexuality would back up your claim. Children think about sex frequently and act upon those thoughts with sexual behaviors as well. Though it is true most children do not think about sex as often as most adults this fact should not be viewed as meaning children never think about sex or that they are being coerced when they do.

You are correct, and what I said was wrong as stated. Let me clarify. Children do not think of sex in the same manner as adults. some may engage in autoerotic activity, or in exploratory activity with friends, but they are not mature sexual beings. A child would never "desire" an adult (unless you count teenagers as children, which they aren't for the sake of this conversation). Therefore, activity of the kind we are talking about here is initiated by an adult.

Quote:

So what you are saying here is the logical response to this research is to assume that it does? Such a response appears more related to defending particular ideas than any genuine quest for the truth. Do we want to progress forward and expand the number of our accurate understandings or do we want to halt everything here and assume all we now know must somehow be correct? It is an irrational act to defend and always far more logical to question.

Read what I wrote again. All I was saying was that just because a researcher finds a null result does not mean that that is "truth." Of course further research is needed, and the logical response to this particular research is to question the research and IF the research stands up to scrutiny, then question (and perhaps discard) traditional ideas about what causes psychological harm. I did not say what you said that I said above.