dangin

It just occured to me that Fr. Andrew might have construed that to mean a suggestion to him. 99Percent's interpretation is correct. As is the description of me as crude.

I'm crude but right. I'll take that anyday. Unless Fr. Andrew's succinct explanation is so appallingly clear and obvious that I am forced to admit that I was wrong, and being buggered by an adult can be "nurturing" for a 5-year-old.

Fr.Andrew

(another moderator): Dangin is suggesting crudely a possible pederasts' attitude according to your suggestions.
(Fr Andrew): Say...huh? What suggestions are you talking about?
Dangin's was a childish rant. To what end?

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I have a feeling that your crudeness is unrelated to anything I can do to change your attitude. I'm sure it's ingrained. You're just crude. And you're welcome to it.
I'll ignore you in the future and deal with whatever grown-ups I can find here.

Odemus

Since I think I can safely assume that A) You are not gifted with common sense, and B) You don't have any children of your own (I hope to God you don't), I have taken the liberty of employing the sevices of Google's search engine just to give you an idea of the vast amount of evidence which shows just how devastating pedophilia is to the victim and society at large.

So without further delay I present for your very own perverted eyes some common sense that doesn't escape most rational people.


Link

link 2

Here's an excerpt from this link that establishes just exactly how your version of consensual sexual abuse operates:

1. The Approach
Child sexual abuse (molestation) is an intentional activity. The first requirement (with rare exceptions) is that the offender be alone with the child.

The child is often induced into being alone with the perpetrator by his suggestion of some activity like playing a game. It should be kept in mind that the greatest number of child molestations are by someone known to the child. Even in cases of "strangers" (those outside the family context) the offender, after becoming acquainted with the mother or caretaker, may offer to spend some time with the child in sports, a trip to the zoo or museum.

The initial approach, coming from an adult who may be the father, step-father, or another known person, who says it is okay, usually results in a favorable response. This is because children tend to accept adult authority, particularly that of adults close to them. In such cases the warnings about not talking with strangers do not seem relevant.

One exception to this trust factor on the part of the child is when the child has been molested, and this is a repeat request. In this event the child may back off, but by then the "secret," with accompanying warnings, has already been established.

The game itself turns out to be "our little secret." It is presented as a very special game. It may take the form of, "Look at my penis. Do you want to touch it? It's fun, isn't it? When we are finished we'll go out and have an ice cream," or some such similar approach.

link 4


Feel free to post any research to the contrary.

dangin

I can see the hallmark cards now. Thank you aunt Reenie for letting me fuck you with my knee because that is what made me a better person, not the fact that you cared for me more than any adult ever had.

Sadie or Mimi (if you are going to change the name to protect the innocent you might want to be consistent) was saved in your story by a caring adult. The sexual act could have stopped at the moment the adult knew what was going on. It could have been handled without shame and guilt, and it never could have happened again. Would that have made Reenie's "nurturing" any less? No. And it still does not fit your original thesis. You said "I can imagine circumstances under which a physical relationship with an adult neighbor or friend may be the ONLY(emphasis mine) source of nurturing that a child gets..." Your sweet little Mimi and Reenie story has tons of non sexual nurturing in it.

So I am still waiting for the story where a kid gets fucked and that is the only interaction with the adult, and that is "nurturing" for the kid.

dangin

Never use the polysyllabic latinate, when you can use the monosyllabic anglo saxon. In other words, fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

Quit being such a baby, and argue. My meaning is quite clear and direct regardless of my jargon. Unlike you, who has to have his meaning dragged out of him.

And does anyone else find it peculiar that someone can entertain beneficial intergenerational sex, but is put off by the word fuck? I mean, you either thought up that story, or have had it relayed to you. So you can listen to, or think up, consensual masturbation stories, but turn squemish at the use of low vernacular verbage.

Give me a fucking break.

Fr.Andrew

(odemus): "Since I think I can safely assume that A) You are not gifted with common sense,..."
(Fr Andrew): That little bit of fluff has closed a door. Is that your intent...or would you like to try again?
I don't deny that CSA is harmful. I've never denied that CSA is harmful. I've only said that not all inter-generational sex is abusive. I can demonstrate that with testimonial and research evidence.

dangin

Nothing is more scientific than testimonial evidence.

You should see my testimonials about how delicious the kool-aid was at Jone's town. Those folks just couldn't get enough of it, just ask them.

And let's not forget the line pushing for the sleeping tablet laced pudding among the dorks waiting to catch a ride on the spaceship hiding behind the hale-bop.

Yes, if a person is convinced something is good for them, particularly a young person, then it must be true.

HelenM

Fr. Andrew, your story argument is circular. You presuppose that adult-child sex is a wonderful thing and then you write a story in which it is a wonderful thing.

How about we call a spade a spade? Any old lady who allows and gets excited about being touched sexually by a seven year old is a pedophile and I hope the child is removed from her as soon as possible, for the child's own good.

Helen

beth

I agree with Helen.