Ronin

Please refer back to echidna's post regarding the topic of trivializing the personal experiences of those here.

As for the general and non-hostile dissent, you may refer back to my posts.

Merely ignoring the answers presented as to why it is harmful and then asking 'why', ad infinitum, will not provide any further answers for you...but feel free to do so, at you leisure, it is your dime.

My opinion that you are attempting to justify child abuse is not a 'wall going up', Fr. Andrew...it is an assessment of your fixation regarding this 'societal condition' over the others crimes I have presented in my previous thread.

You called me a 'despicable pantload' the last time I fairly questioned your motivations when you initially came to the IIDB from another website where you conflagrated any hope for reasonable debate with your overdone claims that people weren't addressing your assertions correctly.

These behavioral traits are consistent with one not truly seeking answers to a hypothetical issue, but rather, attempting to justify his own personal craving.

As for your confidence that I have generated a 'file' on you based solely on a speculative debate regarding a controversial issue on the internet, let me assure you that I have much better things to do with my professional time.

There is no difference.

Perhaps you would like to suggest another one that interests you aside from child sexual abuse.

Do any on the list I presented require an honest, non-emotional review of the basis in order to remove them from the statutes in order to free up law enforcement resources?

You neglected to apply your fervor to those.

There are all sorts of taboos (previously referred to as 'societal conditions'), Fr. Andrew, that are present for reasons that I have already stated.

Murder, aggravated assault, rape, cannibalism, etc., generate statutes that are concocted by society using your very assertion ~ yet, they are necessary, because humans crave dignity, sovereignty and liberty.

So, aside from making the general claim that civilization is based on our own illusory committment to order and statutes to maintain order, what is it about sex with children that attracts you to this particular 'taboo'.

You misunderstand ~ the persecution of consensual activity is an affront to my personal perspective, not your general reference to law enforcement officers which I perceived immediately. I was simply conveying to you my own position, no knicker twisting required.



But it is a requirement to your initial hypothetical query, to which I have provided the answer of 'mental capacity to provide consent'.

Either you accept my answer as adequate or present the arguement against it.

So far, you have been unable to do so ~ therefore, the answer of consent remains successful in providing a remedy to your query regarding the 'taboo' of sexually abusing a child.

See above, as it also applies here.

You have been clear in the position that you hold and I have addressed your position with a remedy.

Other than making claims that walls are coming up and implying that people are not rationally addressing your position, you have actually been the one not willing to further address the issue of consent and mental capacity ~ in favor of your own tenacious pet theory regarding 'taboos' that need to be 'examined'.

I've seen better comebacks from a yo-yo...oh, wait a minute.

HelenM

You've gone further than that by laying out a scenario in which an adult and child engage in sexual activity together and claiming that activity is not harmful to the child.

That is going much further than simply saying 'why?'

And when some of us have answered 'why?' you have been evasive regarding the validity of our reasons.

Anyway, do you genuinely not see that your assertions that sexual activity between adults and children may not be harmful in general (i.e. always, necessarily) are invalidating regarding the testimony of individuals who have been harmed by such activity in particular?

If not then you seem to be in the absurd situation of trying to claim that something which in general may not be harmful, in particular, always is. Could you be clear about your motives, please? Do you understand why most of us wonder why you are continually trying to get people to agree with you that some sexual activity between adults and children may be beneficial? Dangin has clearly pointed out that there's absolutely no need for the two people in your example to be sexually involved with one another for it to be a nurturing relationship and I would add that there's no reason to think the relationship was better because sex was part of it. In fact I'm convinced that would make it worse because it would be detrimental to the child.

Anyway, so, if your motive is not to encourage sexual activity between adults and children, what on earth is it, that it would lead you into such persistent questioning of whether such activity may not sometimes be beneficial?

Which, each time I read it, makes me feel like

(I do acknowledge that's an emotional argument But it's part of how I came to have the values I have so it has validity for me)

Helen

Ronin

And, before you say "Why?" one more time, Fr. Andrew ~ it is because the child is mentally incapable of providing qualified consent to such an activity and therefore the act violates the child's personal integrity, sovereigny and liberty all for the prurient interest and taboo-shattering cravings of the sexually ineffectual adult who cannot seem to find sufficient interest and release with the consenting adult.

dangin

And Fr. Andrew.

You have never answered my one simple question about your scenario.

If we examine it as you posted it, and as a second scenario that is identical to the one you posted minus the sexual acts.

Which of the two scenarios increases the utility of Mimi and why?

It's such a simple question.

Bree

We have told you again and again why we think it is harmful. Everyone who has posted has different ideas - Helen says sex is for adults and not for children. blondegoddess has offered a personal testimony. I have said it's because children can't understand what's going on and the adults abuse that innocence by using sex for power. On and on and on. Each time someone tries to answer the "why?" you shoot it down and trivialise the situation by saying the only reason we have these ideas is because of "societial conditioning." You forget that some people actually have these beliefs because it has happened to them and has affected them in a negative way. You make it sound like we wouldn't have felt the experience was harmful if only we had been conditioned to think in a different manner. That is what is hurtful.

Of course, I only speak for myself.

echidna

Fr.Andrew, if you feel you have received uncivil responses from myself then maybe it is because your constant game-playing is disrespectful. And before you resort to yet another transparently dishonest "who me ?" or "I honestly don't understand what you mean", consider that evasive and disingenuous posts such as yours will never be well-received.

How many years have you been debating this topic ? On how many boards ? You are a seasoned veteran of this topic & your obsession with it, along with a persistent style of deceptiveness is not going to convince anyone to trust you.

Fr.Andrew

(ronin~): Please refer back to echidna's post regarding the topic of trivializing the personal experiences of those here.
(Fr Andrew): OK. I did. No examples there, either.

(ronin~): As for the general and non-hostile dissent, you may refer back to my posts.
(Fr Andrew): I didn't mean to paint everyone who has participated in this thread with the same brush. I do appreciate your civility--in spite of your unsubstantiated innuendo.

(ronin~): Merely ignoring the answers presented as to why it is harmful and then asking 'why', ad infinitum, will not provide any further answers for you...but feel free to do so, at you leisure, it is your dime.
(Fr Andrew): I can't recall any answers to my question that I've ignored. I may have raised objections to those I found faulty...yours among them...but I really don't think I've ignored any responses. Except dangin.

(ronin~): My opinion that you are attempting to justify child abuse is not a 'wall going up', Fr. Andrew...it is an assessment of your fixation regarding this 'societal condition' over the others crimes I have presented in my previous thread.
(Fr Andrew): Maybe that's the problem! What previous thread? I haven't read it. That may clear up a lot of this.
In any case, I think honesty demands an example when you're accusing someone of having said something that they deny. If you're relying on your "assessment" of what was said, you should say so up front. IMO




(Ronin~): You called me a 'despicable pantload' the last time I fairly questioned your motivations when you initially came to the IIDB from another website where you conflagrated any hope for reasonable debate with your overdone claims that people weren't addressing your assertions correctly.
(Fr Andrew): You didn't "fairly question" squat. You made a slimy innuedo. That seems to be your stock in trade. I'm sorry I called you a name, but you deserved it.
A review of the thread will show the honest reader that you're relying on your "assessment" again. There were several denizens of this forum who took the time to read what had transpired on the Cygnus Board and agreed that I'd been shabbily treated there. Why didn't you jump in at the time and talk about how I'd "conflagrated any hope for reasonable debate"? Phui!

(ronin~): These behavioral traits are consistent with one not truly seeking answers to a hypothetical issue, but rather, attempting to justify his own personal craving.
(Fr Andrew): "Personal craving"? :-) Is this another slimy innuendo? Or is your reference to my curiosity about the basis for our sexual taboos?

(Ronin~): As for your confidence that I have generated a 'file' on you based solely on a speculative debate regarding a controversial issue on the internet, let me assure you that I have much better things to do with my professional time.
(Fr Andrew): Better things to do than investigate the possible perpetrator of violent crimes? I thought that's what you did for a living.


(Ronin~): The reason, if you honestly want to know, is that humans crave personal dignity, sovereignty and liberty.
(Fr Andrew): That's why it's necessary for our society to hire policemen? I thought it was to protect us from people who would deny us our due as citizens.
(Ronin~): There is no difference.
(Fr Andrew): I suppose that's so...it's a shame that those concepts are so subjective, don't you think? I hate to keep using gay bars for an example, but it's a good one. Homosexual citizens were denied their dignity, sovereignty and liberty by police--sometimes violently--at the behest of society--for the greater part of our history.
And still are in some of these United States.

(Ronin~): Perhaps you would like to suggest another one that interests you aside from child sexual abuse.
(Fr Andrew): Anti-sodomy laws.

(ronin~): "...what is it about sex with children that attracts you to this particular 'taboo'."
(Fr Andrew): There is nothing whatever about sex with children that attracts me--but that is a nice strawman--it's curiosity about the irrational response that the subject generates. And...it has been determined to be pertinent to what is one of my what you call "pet issues", which is the harm we do our children by burdening them with sexual guilt.


(Ronin~): But it is a requirement to your initial hypothetical query, to which I have provided the answer of 'mental capacity to provide consent'. Either you accept my answer as adequate or present the arguement against it.
(Fr Andrew): I thought I did the latter with "what about circumcision"? Here we have a situation involving the violation of the "dignity, sovereignty and liberty"--and "consent"--of an infant...and you fall back on "there's no prurient interest involved". So you're answering my question, "What is it about sex [that makes the difference]?" with..."It's about sex."
Thanks a heap.

(Ronin~); You have been clear in the position that you hold and I have addressed your position with a remedy.
(Fr Andrew): My position doesn't ask for or require a remedy. I've obviously been unsuccessful in my attempts to convey it to you.

(Ronin~): I've seen better comebacks from a yo-yo...oh, wait a minute.
(Fr Andrew): I'm serious. I can only imagine the internal conflict you must experience trying to balance your claimed philosophy and your chosen career. Do either of your eyes twitch? That's a sure sign.

Fr.Andrew

HelenM

But you did start the thread Ronin linked to, A Sex Question, in which you asked:

Are there reasons, beyond the threat of pregnancy or disease, why children should not experiment with sex at whatever age they become interested--and in whatever direction it takes them?

Maybe you consider that a different topic but it seems to me that it's at least somewhat related to the issues being discussed in this thread.

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): You've gone further than that by laying out a scenario in which an adult and child engage in sexual activity together and claiming that activity is not harmful to the child.
(Fr Andrew): I did that on request. I said that I could imagine a situation in which intergenerational sex may be beneficial to the child. Then I was asked to articulate such a scenario...and I did. I would never have done so if I hadn't been asked. It was never intended to be a justification for anything.

(HelenM): Anyway, do you genuinely not see that your assertions that sexual activity between adults and children may not be harmful in general (i.e. always, necessarily) are invalidating regarding the testimony of individuals who have been harmed by such activity in particular?
(Fr Andrew): I really had no idea that they were...and didn't intend them that way. I don't mean to invalidate or trivialize anyone's experience of abuse.

(HelenM): If not then you seem to be in the absurd situation of trying to claim that something which in general may not be harmful, in particular, always is.
(Fr Andrew): Well...it's not. Always. I don't feel a bit absurd in pointing that out.

(HelenM): Do you understand why most of us wonder why you are continually trying to get people to agree with you that some sexual activity between adults and children may be beneficial?
(Fr Andrew): Yes...I suppose I do. That doesn't help the frustration, though. I wish that those of you who wonder, would honestly review what I've written.
And I really don't understand the hostility.

(HelenM): I would add that there's no reason to think the relationship was better because sex was part of it.
(Fr Andrew): No, but the possibility exists. That was the reason for my story...to illustrate that possibility.

(HelenM): Anyway, so, if your motive is not to encourage sexual activity between adults and children, what on earth is it, that it would lead you into such persistent questioning of whether such activity may not sometimes be beneficial?
(Fr Andrew): Curiosity.