Daleth

That was me, and I did include bullying. I said something along the lines of kids not being known for their compassionate treatment of other kids. That includes bullying, but it also includes the fact that kids with no intention of bullying are still at early levels of learning how their actions impact others. Very young kids don't make the connection that what would hurt them will hurt others, and older kids still often don't think their actions through. Learning how to relate to others takes our whole lives, anyway. That's what we're doing here talking about moral issues.

SLUGFly

He he he, you'd be surprised how difficult it is to find someone to consent to such an innocent act lol

Or maybe not...

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, that was enough...

AFAIK, it isn't illegal to watch your own children masturbating. What I think is illegal is to then start masturbating yourself while in the presence of your children masturbating.

As Ronin quite correctly pointed out (and you seem to have avoided thus far) is the adult's responsibility in any of this.

You keep talking about "monitors," as if if it's a perfectly natural occurrence. As I recall, citings of other animals having sex with one another and masturbating in sight of one another was a regular occurrence, which is identical to saying that billions of species hunt and kill and eat their prey alive, so we should too.

Arguably legitimate, if one is discussing whatever salient likenesses and differences there are between one species on this planet and another.

But we're not discussing that in this last bit of repartee, are we? We're discussing whether or not, at best and so far, watching one's children (or someone else's, presumably) masturbating should be allowed, in a legal sense, yes?

Now, even though I know of no law that prevents parenst from watching their children masturbate, you, Fr. Andrew have proposed this concept in the form of "monitors." I am presuming these monitors are of the same family, but perhaps that's just me.

I'm wondering if you also champion "monitors" to watch thrity eight year olds masturbating? Or seventy year olds? And why just stop at masturbation? Why not have monitors for any sexual activity at all ages? I know that I would just love to have my parents "monitor" my one night stand the other night or the three times I've masturbated since then, wouldn't you?

Wouldn't you like your parents to "monitor" you every single time you've ever gotten an erection? You know...just in case?

No? Why not? Isn't it natural? Isn't it tribal? Isn't it beautiful to have your seventy year old mother or father "monitoring" your fifty year old ejaculate?

But since we're talking also about a societal problem and can't insure that the "monitors" will always be the loving, benign parents who have no ulterior motive in wanting to "monitor" children while they masturbate, perhaps some strangers can be called in to "guest monitor" from time to time?

Wouldn't that be great? To have a total stranger you've never met or known "monitor" you, as a forty five year old man, masturbate?

Of course, the question arises, why the need? I mean, a child may use objects that could harm it, so that's why a monitor might be warranted. But what of adults? Surely adults never use possibly harmful objects to masturbate with?

So, it makes perfect sense to advocate "monitors" on everyone's sexuality, yes? After all, no one can be perfectly safe all the time when masturbating--child and adult alike--so if one standard applies then it applies across the board right?

Isn't that the purpose of a "monitor?" Or is there another purpose not yet revealed?

Benign monitors for all sexual activity would certainly stop auto-erotisans from killing themselves and from mixed religious marriages from committing cross-religional sins in marriage and drunk girls from having sex with asshole users and "nice" guys from falling for femmes fatalles, right?

If "monitors" works for children, then it should work for everyone, right?

No?

And why would that be? And what would be the cutoff age for a monitor? And how would these "monitors" be regulated? And what would be the legal responsibility of these "monitors?"

You know? Real deconstruction of the problem and how to best approach it?

Ronin

No problem.

I haven't asserted that you said that bullying and self-exploration of any orifice with a sharp object by a child are archaic taboos, Fr.Andrew...but they are 'archaic taboos' nonetheless.

We are examining the legitimate concerns of what you have termed 'a sexually repressed society mindlessly perpetuating archaic taboos'.

I have merely pointed out that...other than pregnancy and disease and the opportunisitic pedophile...there are other reasons why children should not experiment with sex at whatever age they become interested...and in whatever direction their curiosity takes them.

You have even provided some of your own reasons with your 'bullying and self-exploration of any orifice with a sharp object by a child' observations.

The bullying and self-exploration of any orifice with a sharp object by a child observations would qualify as additional reasons why children should not experiment with sex at whatever age they become interested...and in whatever direction their curiosity takes them.

That is not confusing at all.

In my experience as a criminal investigator that investigates the kinds of cases you are speaking of...and since you are directly asking my personal observation...counselors take into consideration the comparable ages of those involved, any aggravating circumstances and the victim's personal assessment of the incident prior to making any recommendations to Family Court or the D.A.'s office.

I would like to point out that there are other options available aside from incarceration regarding these types of incidents, in case anyone has any pre-concieved notions regarding this topic.

Only opportunistic adults have their identities made a part of the public record.

Remember, also, that criminal action is only activated when there is a complainant that states a victimization.

Would you still require legislative protections against such activity in order to prevent pregnancy, disease, the opportunistic pedophile, bullying, deception, mental and physical harm...now that we can establish all of these as valid reasons why children should not experiment with sex at whatever age they become interested...and in whatever direction their curiosity takes them?

No problem.

No problem.

No problem.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): This implies an inference from me that bullying and self-exploration with sharp objects are archaic taboos. I haven't made such an inference. They're not. Restrictions against them may be considered taboo, but "archaic" means outdated and I don't know that restrictions against self-exploration with sharp objects and bullying are outdated. By "archaic" taboos, I mean social prohibitions against children experimenting sexually when they become curious and in what direction it takes them.

(Fr Andrew): No...I haven't given those as reasons why children should not experiment with sex at whatever age they become curious and in whatever direction it takes them. I've given those as reasons to monitor children at play so they don't harm themselves.

(Fr Andrew): That misses my point a bit. If we're relying on counselors to make recommendations, what do we do when the counselors disagree among themselves? Or with "community standards"?
But you sort of answered it. Family Court or the DA's office (via legal statutes) make the final decision on what does or does not constitute CSA...not counselors or "community standards".

(Fr Andrew): You keep adding things. I don't think legislation against childhood bullying is necessary at all. And I certainly don't think that's a reason to stifle sexual curiosity in children, which is the subject of my OP.
In fact, the need for legislative protections against any of those (beyond mental and physical harm) has not been established to my mind...at least not in the long term. Here's something else I've not advocated--the immediate removal of such safeguards.
I'd like a review of them...in a rational manner...in light of 21st Century sophistication and free of religious influence.
I think if children grow into adults with fewer sexual hangups, society would benefit.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I'm terribly pressed for time this morning, Koyaanisqatsi (all hell has broken loose around here with the return of decent weather, and I've spent my morning's time allotment on ~ronin) so will have to give this another look later today. I think you may have misunderstood me--I'm not talking about adults, and I don't advocate monitoring children as they masturbate.

HelenM

Consider children who know nothing about sex, who are not being taught about it or exposed to it yet.

When do you think they would become 'sexually curious' and what would the nature of that curiosity be?

I think most children who are sexually curious before hormones kick in are that way because some exposure has made them curious. Which in effect, is adults initiating children into sexual activity, whether it's direct or indirect.

I just don't think it's the case that young children want to 'try out sex'. In my experience they think the idea of it is gross. Why would they think otherwise unless someone has told them or shown them somehow?

When people write about sexual experiences as children, those tend to involve two people - for one it is the first time, for the other it isn't. And when the other had their first time, it wasn't the first time for their partner. And so on. Go back along the chain and you'll see a chain of what I would term 'abuse', where a sexually experienced person initiates/coerces someone with less experience into trying it.

I just don't think it's common for children to suddenly, spontaneously, with no influence, have sexual curiosity. And given how often it seems that the child is 'initiated' by another, based on what I've read/heard, it could be quite rare.

So, prove that sexual hangups result from children not engaging in sexual activity. Does every adult have hangups except a few who a) wanted to engage in it and b) managed to engage in it without getting in trouble? I doubt that everyone here who didn't engage in sexual behavior young would say they have hang-ups today. So I doubt you can establish that children need to engage in sexual behavior not to have hang-ups as adults.

Helen

Amen-Moses

Anytime from about two years of age.

Sex does not need to be taught, sans education we would all be fucking like bunnies long before puberty, we have to actively discourage it in fact which is what all the taboos are about in the first place.

Now given that in the past bloodlines were held to be extremely important and that without some form of regulation it is impossible to ensure the correct lineage it is understandable that these taboos came to be created. But surely in this modern age with methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies these taboos may be seen as archaic.

Amen-Moses

HelenM

If you're arguing from 'nature', is this what we observe in primates?

What I've seen at the zoo - admittedly that is not rigorous research - is that they engage in play somewhat like that of the human children I know. They chase each other and tease each other and fight but I've not observed anything sexual.

Helen

Ronin

It does not imply any other inference other than that of definition.

Taboo: banned on grounds of morality or taste <the subject is taboo>

That these taboos have been around for ages, which make them archaic.

There is no doubt that bullying and self-exploration of any orifice with a sharp object by a child are banned behavior because they are perceived as immoral or lacking taste.

Certain fetishists would argue that there is no real reason to prevent this behavior other than society mindlessly perpetuating archaic taboos.

Society (and yourself apparently) has still assigned these acts as morally distasteful acts that a child might engage in given the opportunity to pursue a sexual curiousity where ever it takes them.

I have responded accurately to your OP that these are acts, along with a few others we may still disagree on...(such as the inability to form consent)...in addition to the risks of pregnancy, disease and the opportunistic pedophile.

None of these 'archaic taboos' are necessarily grounded in a religious context, rather, a basic context of human protection, safety and sovereignty.

But they are reasons why children should not experiment with sex at whatever age they become curious and in whatever direction it takes them, nonetheless.

Do you agree?

We leave it either up to a judge or a jury of peers to review/monitor the reported behavior in order to make a valid assessment of the case facts.

Correct.

They are given an opportunity to make a decision based on the case facts, any anomolies to the statute and the view of the victim/complainant.

I hope that this knowledge has brought some relief to your perspective as to how the societal system of law works.

That is quite a frank admission, Fr.Andrew.

I will have to disagree.

That is, yet another, frank admission, Fr.Andrew.

Isn't "bullying" considered mental and physical harm especially as a reason to stifle sexual curiosity in children, which is the subject of your OP?


Which is beneficial to the safety and protection of children.

For what it is worth, I have seen yearly changes and qualifications to both the sexual battery and rape statutes.

Each and every July 1, the state legislature reviews assorted court decisions and goes through an extensive process to enact change.

Perhaps that will help alleviate any misconceptions you may have of "community standards" and the legal process.

I agree.

And being bullied, deceived and physically harmed while experimenting with sexual contact in whatever direction their curiousity takes them are the additional reasons...other than pregnancy, disease and the opportunistic pedophile...you asked for that would cause sexual hangups to the detriment of society.