Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vesica · 11-14-2002, 07:24 AM

Quote:

I've never met a 7-year-old whose behavior was typical of 'Penthouse Forum.'

Yes and.....As a sexually active adult my behavior is no way typical of Penthouse forum. What were you trying to get at? Yes, intercourse involving chains or numerous others or intresting locations is probably not typical of a 7 year old.

But I would consider kissing, carressing, mutual masterbation or fondling all sexual acts that some normal 7 year olds engage in.

I am the only person on the planet that played around with kissing the little boys when I was in kindergarden?? Of course, at 6 I decided boys were too slobbery for that....

livius drusus · 11-14-2002, 07:24 AM

Fr.Andrew, if you feel JohnV is setting you up, (which I imagine he wouldn't bother to deny) then you are perfectly free not to reply. But you replied to his OP, changing the specifics of a scenario which has been kept strictly bounded in part to comply with the rules of this forum, and only after he asked you to stick to the OP did you say you wouldn't respond to him until he apologized.

I think JohnV makes a perfectly reasonable point here. Even if we assume it is possible that the girl not be scarred for life by the sexual relationship, why would the adult opt for a sexual relationship over a platonic one? Is the adult's affection/nurturing contingent on getting to have sex with the girl?

The adult has a clear choice. I don't see how the decision to have sex with the child can be seen as preferable unless the adult is unable to provide love without a sexual quid pro quo. And if it is a sex for love deal, then it is extortion, not nurturing, whether or not the child sees it that way. It is the 35 year old's responsibility that is the issue, not the 7 year old's ability to assess the sexual/power dynamics.

Fr.Andrew · 11-15-2002, 02:35 AM

(Livius Drusus): Fr.Andrew, if you feel JohnV is setting you up, (which I imagine he wouldn't bother to deny) then you are perfectly free not to reply. But you replied to his OP, changing the specifics of a scenario which has been kept strictly bounded in part to comply with the rules of this forum, and only after he asked you to stick to the OP did you say you wouldn't respond to him until he apologized.
(Fr Andrew): You're absolutely right that I was not addressing JohnV's OP--set up or not, the title alone was clearly a continuation of his attempts to make it sound as if I'd said something which I hadn't. But I had no opinion on the matter as stated and, quite frankly, in the course of following the thread, had forgotten it.
I apologize.
My fluffy little story was a reply to cjack, who first asked:
"I am still trying to figure out why there is an effort on this board to justify sexual relations with small children...anyone care to jump in on that one???"
and then:
"For that matter, under what circumstances could it possibly be better to comfort a child in a sexual manner?"
I wanted to draw a scenario in which it could happen, in spite of the reluctance of the adult...and to the benefit of the child
JohnV seemed anxious to engage me after the Mimi story, and my remarks to him were simply to point out that his efforts would be futile until he begged my pardon for lying about me.
Again, I'd long forgotten the OP.

(Livius Drusus): I think JohnV makes a perfectly reasonable point here. Even if we assume it is possible that the girl not be scarred for life by the sexual relationship, why would the adult opt for a sexual relationship over a platonic one?
(Fr Andrew): Boy! I don't know. And don't see that it matters. In my scenario, I didn't envision a deliberate choice on Reenie's part at all.
All I'm doing is suggesting the possibility, as you say, that the girl may not be scarred for life by the relationship. I'd go a step further and say that there even exists the possibility that she may actually benefit from it.

(Livius Drusus): Is the adult's affection/nurturing contingent on getting to have sex with the girl?
(Fr Andrew): Not in my scenario. For them, it's not even a remarkable part of their relationship.

(Livius Drusus): The adult has a clear choice. I don't see how the decision to have sex with the child can be seen as preferable unless the adult is unable to provide love without a sexual quid pro quo.
(Fr Andrew): I can imagine an adult, under certain circumstances, allowing things to get out of hand--inertia setting in, and the status becoming quo. Again, with the child benefitting emotionally.

(Livius Drusus): It is the 35 year old's responsibility that is the issue, not the 7 year old's ability to assess the sexual/power dynamics.
(Fr Andrew): The issue for me, from the git-go, has not been the responsibility of the adult, but the welfare of the child. I would rather a child feel loved and wanted--no matter the source--than feel rejection and lonliness.
I'm not advocating anything. I simply take issue with those who say that such situations are always the result of predation and harmful under every circumstance.
I can imagine a scenario in which that's not the case.

HelenM · 11-15-2002, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew:
, as they snuggled in the bed together, as Reenie was comforting her, she realized that Mimi was masturbating against her leg. Mimi knew that something was going on, but had no idea what. All she knew is that it gave her a pleasure and release she'd never known...and that she was laying in the arms of a woman she had grown to love, tingling and exhausted.

I think you are imagining adult sexuality in a 7 year old girl. I don't believe this would be typical 7 year old behavior.

Quote:

She asks. An honest woman, Reenie says that it's something that people do sometimes by themselves and sometimes married couples do it together...and tries to change the subject. But Mimi is still curious and asks if Reenie and Uncle Will had done that in bed. Reenie says yes...they had. Mimi asks if Reenie doesn't miss it because it feels so good. Reenie says yes...she misses it a lot. She sometimes does it to herself, but it's not the same.
The next time they're in bed together, feeling sorry for her aunt, Mimi slips her knee against Reenie's crotch and the old woman, relenting to a flood of emotions she thought she'd never experience again, allows her niece to bring her to orgasm.

I think this is totally unrealistic also, to assume that an older female would want to have a sexual relationship with a 7 year old girl.

I'd say you've described a very a-typical child and adult.

Quote:

I can easily see how things may lead one to the other in this situation--with Mimi and Reenie having a long, caring, loving, non-abusive relationship...to no one's harm.

I can also see the County child welfare people getting wind of the arrangement, yanking Mimi out of the only loving home she'd ever known and putting her into a foster care situation from which she emerges, years later, with a life-time of debilitating guilt instilled in her for having violated one of societies sexual taboos..

I don't think typical 7 year olds desire sexual relationships with adults and I don't think typical adults desire sexual relationships with 7 year old children.

Part of the problem here, imo, is that you have described a child and adult as having the same sexual desires and entering into a relationship that parallels that of consenting adults. But I don't think typical 7 year old children do have the same sexual desires as adults which means that if an adult and child have a sexual relationship, the adult is generally the initiator and coerces the child into it...which is basically, abuse, since children find it hard to say no to a loved and/or authority figure and find it hard to believe the loved and/or authority figure might be suggesting something inappropriate.

Helen

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]

Gallimore · 11-21-2002, 09:29 AM

When I was a 7 year old, I used to have erection when my babysitter bathed me. Futhermore, there are countless instances in which adults desire sexual relationships with children. These people do exist.

A child and adult might not have the same sexual desires. But a husband and wife might not have the same sexual desires either. The point is: they have a sexual desire. When I was a kid, I used to play doctor with a girl my age. We were consenting children. I suppose we were doing something inappropriate, but I don�t think authority has anything to do with it. Can the same be said of the adult/child relationship?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-14-2002, 07:24 AM	#82
livius drusus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Selva Oscura Posts: 4,120	Fr.Andrew, if you feel JohnV is setting you up, (which I imagine he wouldn't bother to deny) then you are perfectly free not to reply. But you replied to his OP, changing the specifics of a scenario which has been kept strictly bounded in part to comply with the rules of this forum, and only after he asked you to stick to the OP did you say you wouldn't respond to him until he apologized. I think JohnV makes a perfectly reasonable point here. Even if we assume it is possible that the girl not be scarred for life by the sexual relationship, why would the adult opt for a sexual relationship over a platonic one? Is the adult's affection/nurturing contingent on getting to have sex with the girl? The adult has a clear choice. I don't see how the decision to have sex with the child can be seen as preferable unless the adult is unable to provide love without a sexual quid pro quo. And if it is a sex for love deal, then it is extortion, not nurturing, whether or not the child sees it that way. It is the 35 year old's responsibility that is the issue, not the 7 year old's ability to assess the sexual/power dynamics.

11-15-2002, 02:35 AM	#83
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	(Livius Drusus): Fr.Andrew, if you feel JohnV is setting you up, (which I imagine he wouldn't bother to deny) then you are perfectly free not to reply. But you replied to his OP, changing the specifics of a scenario which has been kept strictly bounded in part to comply with the rules of this forum, and only after he asked you to stick to the OP did you say you wouldn't respond to him until he apologized. (Fr Andrew): You're absolutely right that I was not addressing JohnV's OP--set up or not, the title alone was clearly a continuation of his attempts to make it sound as if I'd said something which I hadn't. But I had no opinion on the matter as stated and, quite frankly, in the course of following the thread, had forgotten it. I apologize. My fluffy little story was a reply to cjack, who first asked: "I am still trying to figure out why there is an effort on this board to justify sexual relations with small children...anyone care to jump in on that one???" and then: "For that matter, under what circumstances could it possibly be better to comfort a child in a sexual manner?" I wanted to draw a scenario in which it could happen, in spite of the reluctance of the adult...and to the benefit of the child JohnV seemed anxious to engage me after the Mimi story, and my remarks to him were simply to point out that his efforts would be futile until he begged my pardon for lying about me. Again, I'd long forgotten the OP. (Livius Drusus): I think JohnV makes a perfectly reasonable point here. Even if we assume it is possible that the girl not be scarred for life by the sexual relationship, why would the adult opt for a sexual relationship over a platonic one? (Fr Andrew): Boy! I don't know. And don't see that it matters. In my scenario, I didn't envision a deliberate choice on Reenie's part at all. All I'm doing is suggesting the possibility, as you say, that the girl may not be scarred for life by the relationship. I'd go a step further and say that there even exists the possibility that she may actually benefit from it. (Livius Drusus): Is the adult's affection/nurturing contingent on getting to have sex with the girl? (Fr Andrew): Not in my scenario. For them, it's not even a remarkable part of their relationship. (Livius Drusus): The adult has a clear choice. I don't see how the decision to have sex with the child can be seen as preferable unless the adult is unable to provide love without a sexual quid pro quo. (Fr Andrew): I can imagine an adult, under certain circumstances, allowing things to get out of hand--inertia setting in, and the status becoming quo. Again, with the child benefitting emotionally. (Livius Drusus): It is the 35 year old's responsibility that is the issue, not the 7 year old's ability to assess the sexual/power dynamics. (Fr Andrew): The issue for me, from the git-go, has not been the responsibility of the adult, but the welfare of the child. I would rather a child feel loved and wanted--no matter the source--than feel rejection and lonliness. I'm not advocating anything. I simply take issue with those who say that such situations are always the result of predation and harmful under every circumstance. I can imagine a scenario in which that's not the case.

11-21-2002, 09:29 AM	#85
Gallimore Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pasadena, CA Posts: 36	When I was a 7 year old, I used to have erection when my babysitter bathed me. Futhermore, there are countless instances in which adults desire sexual relationships with children. These people do exist. A child and adult might not have the same sexual desires. But a husband and wife might not have the same sexual desires either. The point is: they have a sexual desire. When I was a kid, I used to play doctor with a girl my age. We were consenting children. I suppose we were doing something inappropriate, but I don�t think authority has anything to do with it. Can the same be said of the adult/child relationship?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.