Fr.Andrew

(Bumble Bee Tuna): I think Fr.Andrew raises a good point on whether it's the stigma or the actual act that causes harm, but I do not think it's something that will ever be determined.

(99%): Only the individual can determine it in his rational capability to do so. A child is not such an individual, yet. A child has no clue of what the social stigmas of such sexual actions carry, or if they can hurt him or not, because sexuallity by its definition is an adult characteristic.
(Fr Andrew): This comes real close to my point of interest in all this. I'll have to be brief, though--and probably somewhat incoherent--and I may edit this after a night's sleep. Fr Andrew is distraught at the death of Fred "Mr" Rogers...and has had some medicine. :-(
I'd really like to get more general. Forget about inter-generational sex for a minute.
Children are easily influenced...rational capability is not an issue. Children are made aware of sexual taboos at a very early age by their parents and by society...and are vulnerable to emotional harm for having violated them.
My question:
Is the harm from which we wish to shield the child caused by the social stigma attached to the sexual action...or by the sexual action itself?
If the former, is there a rational basis for the social stigma?
If not, and we'll never know unless we honestly explore the reasons for our prejudices, wouldn't we be well advised to discard irrational social stigma that causes kid emotional harm?
Whew! That took just about all I had.
Sleep.

R.I.P. Fred...you're a good man.

Fr.Andrew

(Ronin): The very issue is with the inability of children to make an informed consent to a sexual act.
(Fr Andrew): Not for me. If the child's parents give their consent, as legal and moral guardians, would the issue disappear? No...they'd be locked up.
What is there about sex?

echidna

Fr.Andrew, do you acknowledge that consensual intergenerational sex can and often does, have adverse consequences for the child ?

Bumble Bee Tuna

No, saying something could rarely be a good thing is not advocating it. In fact, it is implying that said thing is bad almost all of the time, which is quite the opposite of advocating it. Apparently you missed the part where I said I was making a distinction between "is this ever right?" and "should this be considered moral/legal?".

If there is a guy with a bomb surrounded by people, and he is ready to blow it up if any funny business happens, it would be a good thing for me to fire a pistol at him from 100 feet away with no firearm training in the rare hope that it would hit him in the head and immediately incapacitate him so that he could not set off the bomb...But that's very rare and thus I would not advocate firing the pistol in such a situation, nor would I consider such an action a "good" moral action. Yes, it's consequentialism, but like I said we're not building a meaningful moral theory we're discussing if the situation could ever be a good thing, which is a completely different subject. Though the way the poll was worded, with "right" and "wrong", I think it would be fine to say "always wrong". If it was worded "always beneficial"/"Never Beneficial" (which I think was the intention), then I could not imagine "never beneficial" as being the right option.

Also, the original poll had an age limit of 14 versus the age in Fr.Andrew's post of 7.

Also, I do not side with Fr on all things, for instance I don't think something sexual could ever be the only possible source of nurturing, or even the best out of all choices available. I am not bound to come up with the scenario you desire because I do not agree that such a scenario exists.

-B

Ronin

Certainly...and the only way to reach a societal consensus is to legislate the statute by age of victim and offender, wherein we can indicate probable cause exists that an offense against the non-consenting has taken place and let a jury (grand jury, initially, and finally a trial jury) contemplate each case on its merits.

By the way, I have worked cases where drug addicted, teenage prostitutes have been raped. There are facts and circumstances that lead reasonable jurists to find that consent is of greatest import when deciding the fate of defendants.

I was addressing the issue of the seven year old in Fr. Andrew's proposition, fyi.

That said, only by arresting pedophiles that are quite obviously taking advantage of a non-consenting child (as in the case fr.andrew has proposed) can we address the issues you have indicated you are concerned with in the appropriate forum.

If you have an alternative proposal, I am open to consider it.

There are assorted 'levels of abuse' addressed by legislative statute.

If you wish to address one in particular, please do so, so that you and I can debate it further.

As a secular humanist and a violent crimes detective, that specific 'as an aside' does not interest me in the least, as it does not apply to the human condition.

As an investigator, I have enough of a task bringing human pedophiles to justice ~ especially those that continually try to justify their offensive abuses with polite excuses and hypothetical fantasies.

Though you generalize well, Amen-Moses, there are times and considerations when crying 'children' have been sexually abused and betrayed by authoritarion adults that will deserve the legislative benefit of the doubt.

The gray 'teenage areas' are open for reasonable jurors to consider.

Anything hypothetical, in general terms, does not apply to the damage done to these particular children by there sickeningly sweet violators.

Any attempt to dilute that fact is the significance of our debate.

I hope you understand the position I represent.

Ronin

Personal sovereignty, integrity and consent.

Is the high value of that so hard to understand?

lunachick

Nope. Not for me.

I see an adult having sex with a child as possibly the most selfish act there is. I would like to see studies, Fr. Andrew, to show that there instances where a child may benefit, and will not suffer any long term negative effects. Sometimes, the damage doesn't show for years.

Ronin

It is about the most destructive of betrayals, lunachick.

...that of the deepest personal violations that exists ~ the destruction of our 'self' and of our trust in anyone.

The ramifications of this affront is incalculable to the developing child.

My curse ~ I can not seem to prevent it...

echidna

No, this is plainly false. As a responsible carer, events like sex don’t “just happen”. Events like letting Mimi play on the freeway don’t “just happen”. Events like watching Mimi drink cleaning fluid don’t “just happen”. Events like letting Mimi walk into the street and chat with strangers don’t “just happen”. You used the word “nurturing”. More clearly it emerges that for your scenario, the more accurate word is “neglect”.

Maybe you understand nurturing differently, but in my book nurturing doesn’t mean just letting things happen. It means consideration of the risks and consequences of actions to the child. For someone who repeatedly claims that people are always putting word in his mouth which you then need to defend, apparently you have no reluctance in using exactly the same tactic. No, that was clearly not my point. Society’s views on intergenerational child sex are based on objective fact, just as is society’s views on rape. Once again, intergenerational child sex is not the Last Bastion of the Sexual Revolution as you would like to believe. This is quite akin to saying that rape is the Last Bastion of the Sexual Revolution & I regard your ideas as entirely equivalent.

Actually I made no mention of society’s views of Mimi’s relationship, as you know. Society’s view is not relevant as this is what you seem to want to discuss. My response as such was simply because of the direct harm which risks remaining with Mimi as she grows up.

My point (as you well know but would prefer to repeatedly ignore), is that there are recognised risks and lasting damage stemming from all forms of intergenerational child sex, regardless of society’s attitudes. Do some survive without lasting scars ? Yes, but that does not justify the act & nor can it in any way be described as nurturing.

Hey, how about something different & actually respond to my post instead of misrepresenting it.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andew): Firstly, I had no intention of misrepresenting what you said and I apologize for making it seem that I did (intentionally misrepresent you). It honestly sounded to me that you were linking the harm done Mimi to future interpersonal relationships--how she'll interact in society, etc, which I see more a societal problem than a sexual one. Maybe I jumped on that so quickly because that's really my interest in this whole affair.
Perhaps I don't understand "nurturing"--and am using the wrong word. I wanted to illustrate a hypothetical situation in which a caring, loving relationship, which included sex, was beneficial to a child. This solely to counter categorical statements that intergenerational sex is always wrong--under every circumstance. It's not.
The measure of harm, it seems to me, should be the evidence for it. If Mimi exhibits no evidence of harm and, indeed, seems to flourish in the relationship, why should Reenie terminate it?
And I tried to make clear with my description of the old woman that she was quite interested in Mimi's welfare and so would have ended the sexual (or any) part of their relationship in an instant if she thought it was harmful to the child.

(echnida): No, this is plainly false. As a responsible carer, events like sex don’t “just happen”. Events like letting Mimi play on the freeway don’t “just happen”. Events like watching Mimi drink cleaning fluid don’t “just happen”. Events like letting Mimi walk into the street and chat with strangers don’t “just happen”.
(Fr Andrew): I don't consider those apt analogies.

(edhnida); Once again, intergenerational child sex is not the Last Bastion of the Sexual Revolution as you would like to believe.
(Fr Andew): What a sily thing to say! Particularly after taking me to task for misrepresenting you!

(echnida): Do they all ? No.
(Fr Andrew): That's the point I'm trying to make.