Ronin

Who was unable to do that?

But I am glad that even you have, at the very least, some concept to find shameful...I was beginning to worry about you.



The circle has always been evident to me, Fr.Andrew...I fight crime, remember...as an irritating agent of those pesky societal conditions we were examining.

HelenM

So explain how societal conditioning has made 7 year olds not have the mind or body of adults and explain how removing it will make them do so.

And if you can't then maybe it's time for you to accept that societal conditioning is not the main reason most of us are absolutely against sex between adults and children.

Can you tell the difference between seven year olds and adults, Fr. Andrew? Do you see that there is any difference? Do you treat them exactly the same in all respects? Do you think they should be financially self-supporting, finding a job to pay for their food and housing? If not then what is it about sex?

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew-previously): It's a shame that some are unable to distinquish between a desire to examine the societal conditioning and to question it's basis, and a desire to engage in or defend the activities under examination.

(Ronin~): Who was unable to do that?
(Fr Andrew): I'm more amazed all the time at the number of people unable to do that--particularly with respect to this subject. People don't want to examine it...it's worse than trying to talk to a fundamentalist Christian about the possibility of God's not existing. Walls go up instantly! Hostility is the name of the game. I've been encountering a lot of that inability lately--in this thread.
I'm surprised you had to ask.

(Ronin~): But I am glad that even you have, at the very least, some concept to find shameful...I was beginning to worry about you.
(Fr Andrew): Worry not. I'm full of shame for a society that makes people like you necessary. And makes you work so hard. My thinking is that maybe if we truly understood the reasons (or lack thereof) for some of your burden, we could lighten your load.
You guys used to bust gay bars, don't forget. ;-)

(Ronin~): I fight crime, remember...as an irritating agent of those pesky societal conditions we were examining.
(Fr Andrew): I'm sure we'll bump heads occasionally--I fight dogma.

Amen-Moses

It has nothing to do with societal conditioning in my case, nor has it got anything to do with the legality or otherwise of any "machinations", it is purely a complete lack of any desire.

My views are from an outsider perspective, I find it strange that others have so many sexual and emotional hang-ups and I like to examine why those hang-ups exist, for me personally sex has no more importance than a game of chess or tennis.

Maybe I've just spent too much time studying behavioural evolution?

Amen-Moses

echidna

While this seems true for some, it’s safe to say that the vast majority of people are unable to “dissociate” themselves as effectively.

If anything this simplifies the argument dramatically. Because for the majority (without comment of the Right or Wrong & regardless of societal influences), negative sexual experiences, are far from simply losing a game of chess or losing a game of tennis. For the majority, such negative experiences in childhood are deeply traumatic & as such harmful. Maybe not always, but often enough to warrant serious concern.

With this in mind, the seduction of a minor by an adult, can never, that is, never be considered nurturing.

When driving, many enjoy driving fast. The thrill, the challenge and even the risk is thoroughly enjoyable to many. But most recognise that such an action carries risk, great risk to others, so most fully accept that one must not drive as to endanger others. Failing to do so is again reckless and neglectful, just as is Fr.Andrew's elaborate scenario. For those who can dissociate themselves from sex, they should have little difficulty in doing the same, if indeed they really can dissociate themselves as easily as they claim.

So some people don’t get to enjoy themselves & miss out on their game of tennis. It’s a small price to pay, unless in fact their desire to participate in intergenerational child sex, is greater than they say it is.

echidna

And the reasons are plain, as you well know. There are many here on this board, and presumably on the other boards on which you enjoy discussing this topic, who profess deep personal harm from intergenerational child sexual experiences of their own. Your preferred response to these posters is to either ignore their protests, or claim that their perceived harm is only a societal conditioning. It’s a response both insulting and in broad denial of reality.

Threads about Holocaust denial also often raise hostility. And after so much experience on this pet issue of yours, your expression is only one of mock surprise, a clumsy pretence designed only to irritate.

Bree

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Fr.Andrew

(echnida): Your preferred response to these posters is to either ignore their protests, or claim that their perceived harm is only a societal conditioning. It’s a response both insulting and in broad denial of reality.
(Fr Andrew): I can't recall a single instance in which I have ignored someone's personal testimony of CSA. If you know of one, I'd appreciate you pointing it out so that I could apologize to the offended party. I have no interest in trivializing the experience of any abuse victim.
I have said that the harm of intergenerational sex may be more a product of guilt for having violated a taboo, than from the sex itself...but that's a little different than saying that "...perceived harm is only a societal conditioning."
I really don't understand your attitude, echnida. We disagree, but can't we be civil? Do you feel that I've been disrespectful toward you? Belligerent?

(echnida): Threads about Holocaust denial also often raise hostility.
(Fr Andrew): I can't imagine why a thread exploring the causes of Holocaust denial would raise hostility toward the explorers...but having never read one, I'll take your word for it.
Why do you think that is?

Ronin

In addition to echidna's very astute post regarding those with direct experience emotionally countering your 'societal conditioning' assessment, there have been several others on this thread that have examined your hypothesis and articulated very general, non-hostile dissent.

I agree that you do seem to be disingenuous with the 'Walls go up' assertion. But, then again, I've been witness to some of these defense mechanisms of yours here at the IIDB and elsewhere (curiously regarding this very same topic) whenever you cannot offer up any further remedies for your 'hypothetical' view and attempts at justifying child sexual abuse.

The reason, if you honestly want to know, is that humans crave personal dignity, sovereignty and liberty.

As a detective who specializes in violent crimes, I understand that 'societal conditions', as illusory as they may be, are necessary to prevent an acceptance of murder, rape and aggravated assault precisely because a human is deprived of these comforts to their detriment (this applies to lesser property crimes as well, hence, the lesser legislative penalties).

I hope you are not suggesting that society should remove the conditions for these concocted statutes in order to lighten my burden.

What is it about sex and the issues of personal dignity, sovereignty, liberty and the mental capacity to consent that drives your assertion in this particular area regarding children and not these other crimes?

The persecution of humans pursuing consensual activity (sexual or otherwise) is not on my resume, Fr. Andrew, and is an affront to my personal perspective. I have rejected transfers to the narcotics division on these grounds in the past ~ though, with the recent advent of meth labs which do risk the lives of others, I have given the issue a second look recently.

Societal conditions have evolved to recognize the 'consent' ideal in many areas ~ you simply have the burden to articulate a better argument that children, who are obviously so limited in every other arena of human experience and behavior, have the mental capacity to provide that qualified consent.

Secondarily ~ please indicate how the sexual interest of the adult, that should be able to find release elsewhere, supercedes giving the benefit of the doubt to the child.

We have been over this several times and you have not yet given me anything convincing.

Same here~ or I wouldn't still be addressing this issue with you...I'm multi-talented like that.

Fr.Andrew

(Ronin~): In addition to echidna's very astute post regarding those with direct experience emotionally countering your 'societal conditioning' assessment, there have been several others on this thread that have examined your hypothesis and articulated very general, non-hostile dissent.
(Fr Andrew): I await examples of my having ignored or trivialiazed anyone's personal testimony of child sexual abuse. I have not denied that intergenerational sex can be harmful nor have I denied that the harm experienced by its victims is real. On the contrary, I have said over and over that I understand that it is harmful--my question is--and always has been--"why"?
I think that it is in large part due to societal conditioning--that doesn't make it less harmful, nor does it mean that I'm justifying or defending it.


(Ronin~): I agree that you do seem to be disingenuous with the 'Walls go up' assertion. But, then again, I've been witness to some of these defense mechanisms of yours here at the IIDB and elsewhere (curiously regarding this very same topic) whenever you cannot offer up any further remedies for your 'hypothetical' view and attempts at justifying child sexual abuse.
(Fr Andrew): Examples, please--so I can have something to deal with here...I'm sure you have a file on me down at the stationhouse by now. Your assertion that I have tried to justify child sexual abuse is an example of what I mean by walls going up and people putting words in my mouth. I have never, not once, tried to justify child sexual abuse. If you got that from my remarks, you are definately reading me incorrectly.


(Ronin~): The reason, if you honestly want to know, is that humans crave personal dignity, sovereignty and liberty.
(Fr Andew): 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~): I hope you are not suggesting that society should remove the conditions for these concocted statutes in order to lighten my burden.
(Fr Andrew): No...I'm suggesting that an honest, non-emotional review of the basis for some statutes on the books may reveal that they have no valid basis...causing more harm than good...and, if so, we should remove them and thereby lighten the load of our law enforcement community.


(ronin~): What is it about sex and the issues of personal dignity, sovereignty, liberty and the mental capacity to consent that drives your assertion in this particular area regarding children and not these other crimes?
(Fr Andrew): The assertion that not all intergenerational sex is abuse?--or the assertion that much of the harm from intergenerational sex derives from guilt for having violated a taboo? (I'm pretty sure those are the only assertions that I've made)
Common sense, a distaste for categorical statements, documented evidence...that sort of thing.


(ronin): The persecution of humans pursuing consensual activity (sexual or otherwise) is not on my resume, Fr. Andrew, and is an affront to my personal perspective.
(Fr Andrew): Sorry...didn't mean to twist up your knickers. I was being general when I said "You guys"--meaning the law enforcement establishment over all. We task them with upholding some pretty irrational laws sometimes, IMO.


(ronin`): you simply have the burden to articulate a better argument that children, who are obviously so limited in every other arena of human experience and behavior, have the mental capacity to provide that qualified consent.
(Fr Andrew): I've not said that they did--I'm not arguing that.

(Ronin~): please indicate how the sexual interest of the adult, that should be able to find release elsewhere, supercedes giving the benefit of the doubt to the child.
(Fr Andrew): I've not argued that, either.

(Ronin`): We have been over this several times and you have not yet given me anything convincing.
(Fr Andrew): Maybe it's because you have in your mind a position that you think I hold--and are disappointed that I won't defend it?

(Ronin~): Same here~ or I wouldn't still be addressing this issue with you...I'm multi-talented like that.
(Fr Andrew): I guess you'd have to be multi-talented to fight dogma while unholding it at gun point. ;-)