Bluenose

Q: Is there some screening process/experiment by which one can tell which children like this sort of contact and which don't?

A: The confessional.

bonduca

I would be especially interested in hearing ACSlave's opinion on a)when he considers a child too young for an adult to have sexual contact with, and b)how one determines a child's interest.

And one more question: ACSlave, would you consider this acceptable sexual behavior for yourself, since you apparently think it does no harm and the children desire it?

Veil of Fire

bonduca: Now, that's not fair. Just because he supports the right of priests to use their authority in order to get young boys to perform oral sex on them doesn't mean he IS a priest who uses his authority to get young boys to perform oral sex on him.

AtlanticCitySlave

“If these children were not harmed by this sexual behavior, why have so many of them later, as adults, sued the Catholic church and these priests?”
-I never said they weren’t harmed. What I said was it would not be that out of the ordinary to think some of them did enjoy it ("wanted it"). Obviously, maybe none of them did. I also cannot tell you the motivation of people who take legal action against the church. You would probably do better to ask them. I imagine some is genuine and they feel the contact hurt them, some is strictly for money, some enjoyed it but were later convinced by their parents years later it was wrong, some enjoyed it but convinced themselves they didn’t, etc. There are many available hypothesis for why people are suing the church (and I imagine a lot of it is money).
A person is exploited, at the minimum, when they are used unjustly (or meanly) for one’s own advantage. So, if a young child wanted to perform some type of sexual act with a priest, enjoyed it, etc., then it wouldn’t be exploiting the child, unless you consider it unjust for that to happen, which I see no reason to think so.
Again, I have already said my credentials have nothing to do with this conversation, and I am not going to give out any information about my personal life. If you refuse to take into consideration what I say simply because I won’t tell you my “credentials”, then simply don’t respond.

Veil of Fire:
“(B) (Re: Not Replying to Someone) Again, this is no doubt very convenient for you, since not only does she tend to reply carefully to posts such as yours, she also asks questions that you might not able to answer. Keep evading the issues, Slave; it might be difficult for you to consider such aspects as”
-Writing in this tone to someone does not exactly breed good dialogue, and so I am going to ignore what you wrote and any future postings. I don’t waste my time discussing topics with people who make implicit insults. I have already made it clear why I don’t respond to Queen of Swords (she is rude), and I do not associate with rude people.

“a)when he considers a child too young for an adult to have sexual contact with”
-It would depend on the culture in which the child is brought up in. If it was an open culture that started from an early age lightly sucking the penis (as women do), to being taught sexual techniques in the teens, etc., then I would never consider the child too young. However, living in our (or my) nation (USA), I think it would be rather hard for the child to grow up, especially since, while it may not bother the child at all, it may end up doing so as the result of everyone telling him/her it’s “wrong”. However, anything forced on the child I would obviously consider wrong, but I do not think, as others seem to, that it would be that hard to tell the difference. Children make it very clear from a young age, particularly physical reactions, how they feel about certain stimulation (food, touch, etc.), and I don’t think it would benefit the child (obviously) to continue doing things they obviously don’t enjoy. But, at 10 I certainly would have enjoyed some light sucking from a nice lady.

“ b)how one determines a child's interest.”
-It’s rather easy to determine a child’s interest. One, they obviously can tell you whether they enjoy something or not (when they can talk). If they were raised in a loving, supportive environment/community, it wouldn’t be surprising if they did just that. Physiological reactions are the second way. A child grasping with a smile at something is obviously a sign they enjoy something or want something (unless you think they can learn acting at age 3). I think the two examples suffice.

“And one more question: ACSlave, would you consider this acceptable sexual behavior for yourself, since you apparently think it does no harm and the children desire it?”

-This has nothing to do with the conversation. The conversation is now changing from my original claim that some children may have “wanted it” from a priest, to now a bunch of personal questions about myself, none of which I care to discuss.
I’ve decided, since the tone of this conversation won’t change and it’s leading nowhere, to make this my last post. I’m not interested in discussing something with people who have their mind all made up and won’t discuss something calmly and rationally (as well as stick to the point). Take care.

hezekiah jones

You are grievously incorrect, Slave. Consent is not an issue, since minors are legally incapable of consent. You are right about one thing, however. Such a situation would not be "molestation," it would be sexual assault.

Wrong again. To be sexually assaulted does not necessarily involve force. Read your New Jersey criminal code, Slave.

MrDarwin

Whether or not adults have the right to use their power and status as adults to exploit children for their own sexual pleasure was not the original issue in this discussion, and was not the issue of AtlanticCitySlave's initial post in this discussion, which everybody immediately jumped on.

The issue was whether or not these children may have "wanted it", something which a Catholic priest claimed, something which AtlanticCitySlave didn't unbelievable, and which I don't find all that unbelievable either.

MrDarwin

I don't believe that's what I was pointing out at all.

I've got news for you, as far as the law is concerned such sexual contact would indeed, by definition, be molestation.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Huginn

I don't think many 10 year old boys really understand their own sexual desires (if they even have any) fully enough to make decisions about whether or not they 'want it'.

The pressure to please and impress authority figures is very strong (especially when religion is involved). I'm sure many of us have smiled and laughed politely at a lengthy and very tedious story from an older relative.

I'm sure the priest involved truly believes that they were enjoying it. The boys quite likely acted as if they were enjoying it and this priest was only too happy to believe them.

The abuse will leave them confused and they will probably have difficulty trusting other people and forming normal relationships.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Huginn ]</p>

MrDarwin

I believe that AtlanticCitySlave misinterpreted what I was saying, but as it turns out he is not necessarily misrepresenting me.

Personally, I believe that in the vast majority of cases such sexual relationships are harmful, but I don't claim to be omniscient, and having known men who engaged in such relationships as boys, I'm not able to say for certain that such sexual relationships are always and necessarily harmful.

So let's turn the question around: does anybody have evidence that such sexual relationships are harmful in each and every case?

bonduca

I did not say it was. I mean that is the issue when deciding whether such conduct is permissible.

How would one go about deciding which ones would be and would not be harmful?

I think it is rather like leaving one’s young children alone in the house at night. It is not the certainty, but the strong possibility that they may suffer harm that makes it unacceptable.