Pat Kelly

It seems safe to say your entire response to everything I have said can be related to a single concept you appear to have fixated upon. You keep returning to the same single idea of adults taking unfair advantage of children and using them for their own personal satisfaction. I would suggest to you that all sex experienced by children involving adults does not rationally fall under the one apparent single definition you appear to have limited yourself to. It might be easier for you to lump everything into a single basket but that does not adequately or realistically reflect the full scope of adult/child sex or even come close to representing the majority of such interactions.

I totally agree with the concept sex should never be forced and that anyone who would force someone into sex against their will should be seen as assaulting that person. In this respect you and I appear to agree on the one point that seems so important to you. However, this has nothing to do with age and I cannot accept your premise that all sex between children and adults is forced because the child does not have enough sense to perceive what they like or don’t like. This is not about adults taking sexual advantage of children so much as it is about adults depriving children of their sexuality. Why is that so hard for you to see?

I am a male and cannot help but see things from a male perspective. It is almost impossible for me to fully comprehend what it must be like to be physically weaker than one’s sexual partner and how helpless one might feel if forced into sex against their will. I hope your overall views of sex are not limited to the idea sex is one person taking advantage of another. What a terrible way to look at something that should be seen and experienced as pleasurable and beautiful.

Gurdur

Your suggestion has already been examined and comprehensively rejected by the sociolegal systems of all advanced countries.
This assertion, of course, totally ignores the fact that it is terribly easy for an adult to manipulate and/or terrify a child --- a practicality that has everything to do with age.
This sounds like an empty rationalization.
Some of us are far better at putting ourselves in others' shoes.
It's a matter of choice and empathy.
Empathy. A matter of choice.
Not when it involves manipulation and rationalization.

AquaVita

Why not back up this assertation? What exactly are the majority of these interactions? If you can claim that Koy doesn't have a handle on that majority, perhaps you can elighten us with some specifics, as you have yet to do so.

Please define child.

Pat Kelly

Well you are conversing with me and I will tell you my childhood was filled with sex. What do you mean by not sexual? Thoughts? Desires? Masturbation? Sexual interactions with others? I have never met anyone who did not experience at least three of these four in their preteen years. No one. Ever. And I have met far more people than you considering you are only 16. (You did have me fooled by the way. I had you pegged as a man in his late 50s’ and you can take that as a compliment.) Also, I am not going to try and dig out some statistics for you so you can dispute the study. Do your own research. If you need a place to start let me know and I will provide you with a link to an academic website.

AquaVita

What site? The same one you've linked many times? Or perhaps a different one? If so then I'd be interested to see what you consider an academic site.

Pat Kelly

This is not about which countries might have rejected certain ideas but whether they were correct in rejecting those ideas. We just recently corrected the widely accepted belief the world is flat and you can rest assured many of the ideas you currently feel bound to defend today will become nothing more than the subject of snickers and laughter of future generations.
It does not ignore it but rather puts it in its correct category under the heading of force and violence. Your attempt to marry sex into the same concept of force and violence is flawed.
Of course you would have to see it that way in order to rationalize your own position.
Perhaps. But a good place to start in assuming you are capable of understanding something from another’s perspective would be to recognize the limits of your perceptive abilities. Chances are anyone who would claim superior abilities of understanding things from other’s perspectives would only do so out of ignorance.
I agree. The only question left to answer now is who is doing the manipulation and rationalization.

Gurdur

Yes it is, and why they did so.
According to the medicolegal consensus and to the social consensus, they are perfectly correct.

However some people still argue against the existing social and scientific consensus, and join Flat Earth Societies.

I strongly doubt it, especially as you have no idea of "many of the ideas I currently feel bound to defend today".
Only according to you, since you ignore the entire aspect of adult/child power relations.
pot, kettle. black.
Deliberately not seeing things from another's POV is far more limiting --- and self-willed.
Chances are that an argument that relies solely on the absence of empathy would attempt to deny empathy altogether.
Fortunately, I am in the medicolegal and social great majority on this one.

Gurdur

Soooo....
we have two issues here (among others):

¶ The willful ignoring of adult/child power relations

¶ and the willful abnegation of empathy.

Care to comment to the point ?

Koyaanisqatsi

If that makes it easier for you.

Since an immature child would not have the necessary experience or even understanding of the reverse, what other course are you suggesting? The idea of mature adults taking fair advantage of children and using them for their own personal satisfaction?

The idea that a mature adult could somehow be the victim; i.e., that a mature adult could be physically overpowered by the child in some way?

Or are you arguing simply that the mature adult does not have the intellectual capacity to recognize what the immature child is doing; that the mature adult is just profoundly imbecilic, like your mentally retarded analogy?

Or are you arguing for a sociopathic interpretation, where the mature adult recognizes the innocent sexual exploration of a child's ignorant flirtations and doesn't care, because only the adult's pleasure is paramount and the consequences of his or her actions are irrelevant to the mature adult (in which case, one could not possibly call this person a mature adult, now can one)?

Something has to account for the inability of the mature adult to stop him or herself from knowingly taking advantage (fair or unfair) of the immature child's ignorant self-exploration.

What do you suggest? We have mature, fully aware, experienced adults and innocent, ignorant, immature children.

The only other alternative that I can see that might explain how it is a mature adult would fail his or her responsibility to the immature child would be a highly delusional mental state, in which the mature adult convinces him or herself that an ignorant, innocent, immature child is actually a fully aware, experienced, equally mature adult in kind and that the raping of that child is likewise reprocessed through this highly delusional and carefully detailed exonerative mental state so that the rapist actually believes that they had engaged in consensual sex between equal partners.

But since that kind of delusional mental state is quite literally a clinically deranged mind, it is therefore incumbent upon mature adults like you and me to protect the immature children from such a danger, yes?

As I pointed out in the rest of my post (that you have conveniently redacted for brevity's sake, no doubt) what other responsibility does the mature adult have beside the protection of the immature child, no matter what the child will do in its innocent, ignorant explorations of its own sexuality? It's their sexuality to explore, not the adult's; its their bodies to do with as they please, not the adult's body to do with what the adult pleases.

Surely a mature adult such as yourself understands such a simple, basic concept as that, yes? Of course you do! You're a father who instinctively reacted to the violation of such a concept when your own almost mature daughter was taken advantage of by the 30 year old neighbor.

If you instinctively responded that way in regard to a child who was almost mature, then you certainly understand the necessity of protecting children younger than that at the very least; children far more immature than your own almost mature daughter, yes?

Ahh, then you are arguing for the delusional state and I concur. It is the most logical conclusion to come to, given all of the variables such as a mature adult in the same room with an immature child.

What else could explain the failure of the mature adult to protect the immature child? After all, that's what being a mature adult means, right?

Well, as compelling as that unsubstantiated claim is all on its own like that, you'll note I also presented the sociopathic interpretation as well as the notion that the mature adult is somehow profoundly weak and thus overcome by the immature child (though that one is highly unlikely, don't you agree?)

Excellent! I knew I was right about you being a mature adult, since this therefore means that you understand there is no other way for a mature adult to engage in sex with an immature child but through some degree of force; either directly (i.e., physically) or indirectly (i.e., tricking or manipulating the immature child into doing something it has no idea of, due to its obvious ignorance and inexperience).

Thus we see once again that it all leads back to the adult's desire to have sex with the child and has nothing to do with the immature child's ignorant explorations of its own sexuality. But you knew this, of course, being the mature, experienced adult that you are. Hell, it's plain as day! An ignorant, inexperienced, immature child could not possibly understand what is involved and what the consequences of their innocent actions would be, which is, yet again, why the mature adult always acts on his or her maturity and seeks to protect that child.

Otherwise, we'd have an adult who is sexually excited by the idea of taking advantage of the child's immaturity and ignorance; of an adult somehow incapable of stemming that sexuallity and acting on their maturity (which brings us right back to the sociopathic and/or delusional mental state interpretation).

No, no, it's the only point important to the responsibility of the mature adult. Don't lose faith in your abilities to comprehend so easily! You're getting it.

It's not rocket science. Mature adult in same room with immature child. Immature child tries to stick fingers in light socket; mature adult seeks to prevent this from happening. Immature child tries to swallow toxic industrial cleaners; mature adult seeks to remove and keep out of reach toxic industrial cleaners. Immature child innocently explores the more pleasure oriented centers of his or her body; mature adult either seeks to explain why that behavior is not generally appropriate in public or lets child do whatever child wants to do.

What mature adult does not do, of course, as you readily know, being a mature adult yourself, is take advantage of immature child's innocent ignorance and seek to pleasure him or her self by engaging in intercourse or fellatio or sodomy or mutual masturbation or molestation of immature child. Unless mature adult is, once again, a sociopath, with no concern for the adverse consequences such a failure clinically obtains.

Again, though, I'm not a qualified psychologist in the field (this is all just everyday common sense any mature adult can recognize) so for a complete, clinical breakdown of all of the disasterous psychological and physical trauma that would obtain in the sociopathic, delusional or otherwise mental deficiency of a mature adult seeking to take advantage of an immature child for his or her own sexual pleasure, you would have to consult with an expert in child sexual abuse.

I'm told that there are literally thousands of case studies (and probably more if your statistics are correct in how many children are used for sexual pleasure by adults).

Just remember this simple axiom and you wont have to keep beating yourself up over not being able to keep up with the analysis: "maturity means more knowledge; more knowledge means more responsibility; more responsibility means no selfish actions against children for the sake of personal pleasure."

See, you've gone all to pieces over your own frustration. I'll clarify it for you once again. It isn't about what the child likes or dislikes; it's about what the adult is doing.

The child is a child. Immature, ignorant, innocent. Children like to eat ice cream and potato chips. Children like to play with their own feces. Children like to drink toxic liquids. Children like to do what all the big kids do.

It's called "innocent curiousity," something an experienced adult cannot claim anymore; only destroy by their own selfish actions.

This is where the maturity comes in. Adults are mature, knowledgeable and experienced in things that immature children are not. So for an adult to get sexual pleasure out of using a child in a sexual way is to axiomatically betray either sociopathic tendencies or a delusional mental state, full of all kinds of rhetorical rationalizations and exonerative behavior (like blaming society for not letting an adult take advantage of a child for the adult's sexual pleasure).

Your focus is all wrong. You keep focusing on the child, when it is the adult that is taking the child into unknown sexual realms for the adult's pleasure. Focus on the actions of the adult, since they are supposed to be the mature ones. Remember: "maturity means more knowledge; more knowledge means more responsibility; more responsibility means no selfish actions against children for the sake of personal pleasure."

Because the child is being used by the adult for sexual pleasure. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

That's odd. I'm a male and I can see things from a female perspective and a child's perspective and my father's perspective and my mother's perspective and even a homosexual and/or lesbian perspective. It's not difficult.

What has this got to do with an adult using a child for sexual pleasure?

Here, it's simple. You are a male, yes, which means you were also a male child. Now imagine (as you have so graciously provided for us) that you are that sexually excitable boy and your father uses you for anal intercourse. Now you know precisely what it must be like to be physically weaker and taken advantage of, all just so that your father could use you for his own sexual pleasure.

Oh, don't worry about me and my views of sex and thank you for your concern, but we should get back onto the topic. That of a mature adult using an immature child for the adult's sexual pleasure.

Yes, I agree. A mature adult abusing their responsibility in that way is indeed a terrible thing. And all just to get their own sexual pleasure out of easy, indefensible prey. I guess sociopaths just have no empathy for their victims so long as they get their own pleasure regardless of the documented harm they're inflicting.

But then, that's the problem with sociopathic, narcissistic minds. They are simply incapable of recognizing how they are inflicting harm or even doing anything wrong to begin with, so instead they have to formulate all kinds of exonerative rhetoric to put the blame anywhere else but on themselves.

That and, of course, they don't care.

But, again, that's the beauty of our judicial system and, at least in this instance, the prison justice I spoke of earlier. One might even call it the natural order of things, because one way or another, the abuser--no matter what exhaustive littany of delusional rationallizations they employ to shift the blame away from focusing on their ultimate responsibility--always, in the end, becomes the abused.

Pun intended. Thank god for the prison gang bang, right?

Of course right.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, great! That's easy. We know it can't be the immature child, since they don't have the capacity. So it must be the adult who uses the child for the adult's own needs who does the manipulation and rationalization.

Congratulations, Pat. You got it!

Or was this in reference to something off topic?