HelenM

I think it is what your scenario entailed.

It doesn't 'just happen'. The adult in the situation allows and facilitates it. She is responsible for that. She could have stopped it. In fact I'd say that for a child to even consider touching an adult sexually after an adult talks about sex to them, the adult said something which inappropriately encouraged the child to try it. But even if the adult had, he/she could easily have stopped the child when they tried it. There was no need to let the child continue; there was no need to allow the relationship between them become sexual. There would have been ways to do that without shaming the child if she really had been masturbating against the old lady's leg. In fact - why did the old lady simply not tell the child straight out that that's not the kind of relationship they had? I think she's completely at fault. "It just happens" is no excuse. Nothing "just happens".

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(Mad Kally): Do you have any man/boy scenarios? If not, why not?
(Fr Andrew): I have a vivid imagination. ;-)
Your question raises an interesting point, though. Shortly after the debacle last fall (when we first met), I conducted a very unscientific survey and composed a post about it, but the opportunity never arose to use it. I think it's appropriate to the subject, but probably not germaine to the OP. I don't know if I should start a new thread or not:

(Sometime last fall): In the course of the thread "35-7", it was suggested that the reaction would have been different had I used a great uncle in my story rather than a great aunt.

Smelling a story, I interviewed, individually, all the people that I ran into yesterday--seven.
I first told them the story using a great uncle and a little boy. I watched them closely.
Without exception, a look of discomfort and revulsion swept across their faces (it registered particularly in their eyes) and they articulated anger and disgust at the prospect.
Then I cautioned them to think about it before answering...and asked them to substitute a little girl--same age.
Without hesitation and, again without exception, even more disgust was expressed...with more heat.
And the eyes still had that intense look.
Then I asked them to consider the same situation with a great aunt...and a little girl. Even though they all smelled a trap by this time, 6/7ths hesitated noticeably before answering--although there was still universal condemnation, 5/7ths used far less force and anger--and they all lost "the look" (although 1/7th averted their eyes and so it was hard to tell).

I'm sure that I'm far from the first to have noticed this--it may even have been discussed here before--but it appears to me that many people (perhaps a majority--perhaps it's cultural) may be more tolerant of adult/child sex when the adult is a woman--than they are when the adult is a man.

Any thoughts on why that may be?

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): I think it is what your scenario entailed.
(Fr Andrew): Well, I tried my best to remove any sense that Mimi was being "used" by Reenie, and to paint their relationship (in all its aspects) as one of mutual benefit...but you've apparently been able to find something in there in spite of my efforts. Whatever it is, disregard it. Mimi is not being used for sex in my story.

Re: things "just happening". I'm quite sure that a woman of your sophistication and firmness of character would have done things differently than Reenie under those circumstances. And probably all your friends.
But there are other shoes to walk in.
Things do "just happen"--sometimes--to some people, and not everyone has the strength of will to discontinue a pleasurable activity that (in this case, so far as either party involved is concerned) causes no harm.

dangin

Fr. Andrew:
"I can imagine circumstances under which a physical relationship with an adult neighbor or friend may be the only source of nurturing that a child gets..."

Then in his anecdote he said:

Reenie spends long hours rocking Mimi and singing to her. Hugging her and holding her. Making her feel wanted and cared for. They bond quickly...the lonely old lady and the abandoned child. The quality of both their lives increases greatly.

OK, so I'm not going to quit harping on this until I get an answer. Fr.Andrew said sex was the ONLY nurturing the child got.

Then he laid out a tale with a great deal of nurturing and psyche repair prior to the sexual acts. In fact, the nurturing is the only thing that can even come close to making the characters appear sympathetic.

Read his story and remove the nurturing, and have the sex acts occur on the same night, and that night is the only time the two spent together. Which is what would have to occur for the story to match Fr. Andrew's argument quoted first in this post. Do the characters still appear sympathetic?

And once again Fr. Andrew, you danced around Mad Kally's question by saying you have a vivid imagination with a wink at the end when she asked about man-boy scenarios. (which is the closest statement you've made to implying these are fantasies of yours) So make with the anecdotes, and try to live up to the criteria you yourself have stated.

The criteria being, that sexual congress between a man and a boy happens. The boy gains benefit from the sexual congress even though the man interacts with him in no other way.

C'mon, I wasn't even crude, I'm almost speaking clinically here. Sexual congress indeed.

Amen-Moses

No, a non-nurturing relationship of any kind.

My local Social Services centre has a poster on the wall listing "Child Abuse", it includes everything from bribing children to behave to ignoring children, shit it even says that being seen naked by a child is abuse!

The relationship described, or any relationship in which no harm comes to either party, is preferable to a relationship in which some of the things on that poster exist, like shouting, beating, mental abuse etc.

I just don't understand why sex is given such a huge priority over all the other forms of abuse which imo are far more damaging.

Amen-Moses

dangin

Amen-Moses, Which is worse?

A small, not yet developed body, that has been penetrated by an adult penis, and had it's flesh torn because of it.

Or the same child beaten.

Both do physical damage, both do mental damage.

Some adults can't have sex without mental damage, but you would posit that it can be "harmless" for children?


edited to add: You seem to be saying at the end that sexual contact between adults and children is abuse. You just don't understand why it is worse than a beating. But at the same time you say that auntie and niece grinding on each other is better than a foster home where the girl gets neglected, beaten, mentally abused, etc. etc.

What's wrong with saying it's all wrong?

It happens? Of course, but what is a society, except a method of protecting those who can't, or can't yet care for themselves?

Ronin

The aggravating circumstance regarding the offense of an adult having a sexual relationship with a child falls directly upon the issue of consent.

A child is unable to form and articulate an informed consent regarding the act of sexual contact and, therefore, the adult using direct authority over the undeveloped child is abusing that child's sovereignty over their body.

Exploitation of the non-consenting in any manner is viscerally offensive regardless of gender and not an acceptable trait for a mature and healthy society.

As an example ~ infants and toddlers have an innate drive to suckle, however, placing a penis in its mouth as it does so, does not equate to consent.

The issue for many supporting the argument that this type of behavior is or can be acceptable must now delineate, for the sake of discussion, at what age the 'child' does become informed and mature enough to provide a valid, articulable consent.

The laws of the land differ greatly on this issue, however, they each do hold to a particular standard ~ which is the right thing to do.

'Sex before eight, or it's too late" is not a justifiable mantra to engage in an affront to personal liberty...rather, it merely exposes the prurient and selfish interests of the offending adult that is considering such an assault on the innocent.

HelenM

Well, a sexual activity is taking place, the child is performing it and the adult is enjoying it. That's what I read and so from that I wrote that the adult was using the child for sex.

I don't understand why you think an old lady would assume there's no harm in sexual activity with a child.

Helen

HelenM

Exactly. I think some abusers convince themselves they have adequate consent from the child and therefore their activity is by mutual consent. However, since children are not able to give adequate consent, it is not by mutual consent, even if the abuser thinks it appears to be.

Helen

Bree

dangin pretty much said what was on my mind, but I thought I'd add my own 2¢:

I think sex is given a bigger priority because of the amount of damage that can be done, even if the abuse only occurs "once" - for example, Daddy smacks you with his belt once versus Daddy forces you to perform oral sex on him.