Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andew): Again...I'm not fishing for an apology, just some straight-ahead language that I can understand. If "I'm not your keeper" equates in your mind to "Sure, no problem", perhaps we should stop ringing each other's doorbells.
I'm not trying to derail anything...I'm saying that you're hard (for me) to understand.


(Fr Andrew): Yes...I would say that the greater percentage of adults are not pedophiles.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ronin

Answer: When they are too young to provide an informed consent (infancy to 13 years of age, by legal statute, in my jurisdiction).

(Fr Andrew): I think informed consent legislation is the result of a sexually repressed society mindlessly perpetuating archaic taboos...and need to be reexamined from time to time in light of new information and research. Or trashed altogether.
Thus my question in the OP.

(Fr Andrew): I addressed that when I said that children should be monitored at play so that they don't bully and they don't engage in self-destructive behaviour.

(Fr Andrew): I was the one who suggested that children at play be monitored so they don't engage in self-destructive behaviour such as putting sharp objects into bodily orifices. There was no reason, beyond a desire to be cute and snide, for you to then ask me if I thought putting sharp objects into bodily orifices was self destructive.

(Fr Andrew): I don't want society, via legal statutes, to do it. That's too much of an arbitrary, cookie-cutter approach to my mind...not taking into consideration that maturity occurs at different ages for different children. I'd like to see kids free to experiment when they become curious...not when society, via legal statues, determines that they're old enough.

(Fr Andrew): Yes...now let's get to reviewing those standards. Back to my OP.

(Fr Andrew): Could you expound on what you intend by "engage in sex"? I don't think a certain standard of mental development is necessary for kids to engage in sex play among themselves, no. If you're talking intercourse, perhaps...I'd have to see what sort of standard you have in mind.
I understand that some states consider mental competency when they issue marriage certificates.
I don't agree with that.

SLUGFly

I threw it in as a half-hearted joke in my first post but it suddenly becomes relevant. When I was 14 I had sex with my 12 year old girlfriend. I don't and didn't see that a crime had ever occured (although I suddenly began hearing the term "statutory rape" a lot more often).

Had the two of us (or either of us possibly) had a healthy and educated view about sex maybe it actually could have been good sex too. And had either or both of us had a healthy and educated view about sex then maybe we both could have walked away from (or continued) the relationship without the emotional damages we both suffered. Or, this is way out on a limb, maybe curiousity wouldn't have gotten the best of us and we would have waited much longer before -exploring the unknown.

Ronin

No problem.

I directly referred you to your statement:

When there's no intent on the part of the adult to abuse or molest the child and the child doesn't experience abuse or molestation.

The 'adult' in your scenario, by your claim, is not a pedophile. You, therefore, are willing to discuss tangents to your OP.

I only ask again for the same ability.

It seems you are now willing to do so, making the point moot.

Your OP had no consideration to the 'informed consent' paradigm that I have subsequently presented.

Now you have become clear as to your motivation regarding your OP, which is helpful to anyone wishing to reexamine the issue.

You have shown an ability to use your standard of an archaic taboo...that of bullying and self-exploration of any orifice with a sharp object by a child...why should you assert then that society is 'mindlessly perpetuating' a similar taboo?

This is surely an obvious puzzle for us to examine as well.

Exactly.

So my posts have had some validity in addressing your OP and have provided other valid reasons why children should not experiment with sex in whatever direction their curiousity takes them.

The reason I posited the question was to directly address your OP.

The question has directly served the only intention it was designed for...to pursue the discussion as you required.

I think that a general community standard is a fair approach and that any anomolies to the standard can and have been taken under consideration by professional monitors known as counselors.

I don't think any one person, such as yourself, is capable of making the determination for society and that the court system is reasonable.

How would you implement your own 'monitor' hypothesis to society at large so that we can get a practical understanding of your view so that bullying or self-harm does not take place?

No problem.

In addition to the standards found in your OP, I have also suggested:

1. To protect children (infancy to 13 years of age) from bullying, deception and physical harm.

2. To protect the elderly (65 or older)

and...

3. To protect the otherwise mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.

Each standard addresses abuses against those unable to form the necessary consent to engage in sexual acts and is justifiably and reasonably legislated against.

This contradicts the assertion that you proposed that bullying and physical harm may take place.

Not to mention the assertion that I make regarding the inability of an infant to possess informed consent to engage in such activity with, let's say, a thirteen year old.

The same standards that we have been examining:

1. To protect children (infancy to 13 years of age) from bullying, deception and physical harm.

2. To protect the elderly (65 or older)

and...

3. To protect the otherwise mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.


No problem.

That view does not address the OP and would be an interesting thread starter.

HelenM

I'm not convinced it's not self-destructive to focus on sex in formative years when there are so many other things kids could be doing. Which I believe have more long-term value and also are not risky.

Even if some people here are arguing "the sexual hang-ups of other people ruined my life!" I don't believe that waiting to have sex has to ruin anyone's life.

Experiment with what? Everything?

What is so great about experimenting per se? My guess is that there are many people who wish they'd never experimented with cigarettes.

Do smart people have to try everything out? Why not learn from the mistakes of others and not try various things...

Helen

SLUGFly

I have to experiment with everything. I've done all drugs I know of but 2 and of those two I've done variations. I've never had sex with a man, but in time I'm sure I will. I've never been to Europe yet, but it's part of the plan. I don't plan on going to prison but that's only because it will limit my future options. One of my core tenets is to try anything twice. If it doesn't remove the liberties of someone else then it's fair game.

Where does this get me and why have I not learned from others mistakes? Because others don't learn from their mistakes, they recognize that it's a mistake and say "don't do it" and that's as far as they can go with it. I can tell you from first hand experience why you shouldn't do morphine or cocaine. I can tell you from first hand experience about leaving every friend and family member to cross the world and cross cultures, about being beaten for saying the wrong things, about obsession leading to depression, about suicidal tangents, about threesomes, twosomes, onesomes and sex with a girl while a man cries on the floor beside the bed. If I slice my thumb open because I think I'm cool and smash a bottle with my hand then I learn that I'm stupid and I have the scar as a constant reminder. If I destroy my body for the benefit of my mind then that's the path I've chosen and that's the way my book has written itself.

If others learn from my experience then I would feel honored, but I hit a time when I looked at my parents with a mixture of pride and sadness and thought, they have nothing left to teach me. Role models can only take you so far, there's only so much you can learn from second hand knowledge.

Experience is just that, experience. To gain from your own experience is to know, to gain from anothers experience is to believe and I refuse to be a believer, I want to know.

But bringing it back in context, how many people in this forum can say they honestly never played doctor as a kid? I did on several occasions, and it was the sort of thing that fat lonely men collecting illegal cds would pay small fortunes to see. If we were allowed to experiment like this as children then perhaps we wouldn't become the raging machines that we do after puberty. Whether suppressed or acted on, everyone gets an intense sex drive after puberty. Girls too. Anyone who would argue that girls get the same drive would have to confront the alternative that many girls are gullible or submissive enough to give into the boys, because the boys are finding ways of releasing their drives.

HelenM

I don't have to. If someone says 'don't do it' and tells me why not, that's often enough for me.

Second-hand experience is good enough for me, often.

Yes, that's your choice, certainly (as long as it's not hurting others)

There are many experiences I neither need nor want.

I hope my children don't feel they have to try everything.

Thanks for your response, SLUGFly.

Helen

yguy

Let us know how the experiment with consensual cannibalism goes, k?

Daleth

You could be right that this is what I'm thinking of, Ronin. I might be confusing 2 memories. That was the youngest one that I could think of and it might very well be wrong.

CSA charges have been brought against 9-year-olds for sure, though, and it has the same impact on me. A kid that age is not mentally capable of being a child molester. We can't say on the one hand that a 9yo doesn't understand sex and therefore can never be consenting to it, and on the other that he or she is capable of understanding sex enough to understand the crime they were committing.

Daleth

Well, here's one. I never did. In fact it would have been completely bizarre to me to consider such a thing.

Fr.Andrew

~ronin, I've skipped through what I consider irrelevant verbosity. I'm sorry, ol' pal, but I'm not a young man and my time is precious. I'll hit the high points and then I'm off to bed. Maybe I'll look it over again in the morning.

(Fr Andrew): I haven't said that those things are archaic taboos...why do you assert that I have? I've only said that those are legitimate concerns for those who monitor children at play.

(Fr Andrew): No...actually it was someone else who brought up match box toys going places they don't belong, and then I mentioned about bullying. Your contributions have served mainly to confuse the issue.
IMO

(Fr Andrew): Do counselors agree in their consideration of these anomolies? For that matter, do counselors always agree with community standards?

(Fr Andrew): Gradually...through education. Starting with an honest, rational reexamination of archaic taboos.


(Fr Andrew): Not to pick too fine a nit, but it was not you who suggested any of that.

(Fr Andrew): Neither of those are pertinent to the OP but either would be an interesting thread starter.

(Fr Andrew): I don't think that it does, but I'll have a look at it again in the AM.