Totalitarianist

I can see no problem with a rational debate lacking unnecessary emotive language, whether in opposition to intergenerational sexual contact or not. I have quite a problem with opposite of that; e.g., your posts concerning the present subject. Your unwillingness, or more importantly your opposition to the idea of, debating such an important subject is pure ignorance; it is a demonstration of cognitive dissonance; it is a confirmation bias on your part. It is absurd and completely irrational. It is laughable that you would be so opposed to mere debating when the subject is so important.

Odemus

If you want to talk about intergenerational sex then go right ahead. A 40 year old with a 20 year old? Despite possible cultural taboos-perfectly legal consensual adult activity. What's the point? Who cares?

If you want to discuss adults having sex with children, you can go ahead (edited to remove offensive language) before you end up hurting someone else.

What kind of mysteries do you think this topic can possibly unravel? Where are the hidden truths to be found? What benefit could a discussion about adults having sex with children possibly have?

dangin

Fr Andrew said I haven't read anyone make that assertion, either. I really don't understand what it is about the subject of intergenerational sex that encourages otherwise rational people toward the construction of strawmen.



He also said

"I can imagine circumstances under which a physical relationship with an adult neighbor or friend may be the only source of nurturing that a child gets..."
To those interested, the circumstances that I imagined as I wrote that, were:
"...a kid living in a trailor in Nasty Gulch WVA or some such place with a single, careless, neglectful mother and no source for compassion or love."
All my remarks on the subject are in two closed threads on the Misc Forum, should anyone care to read them in context.
The notion that sex between children and adults is always, in every case, harmful to the child, is simply incorrect...at least according to what I've read here and here...

...I go on record as preferring that a neglected child be comforted non-sexually whenever possible. If not possible, however, I'd like to see a neglected child comforted. Not "abused", not "harmed", not "used", not "exploited"--comforted.


What the hell are you talking about in the second quote above if not claiming that a sexual relationship between a prepubescent and an adult could benefit the child? And when is it not possible to confort a neglected child "nonsexually" when it is possible to "comfort" them sexually?

Sorry kid, I don't have time to play frisbee, so why don't you suck me off.

Fr.Andrew

(odemus): If you want to discuss adults having sex with children, you can go ahead and do the world a favor right now (edited by moderator to remove offensive language from quote) before you end up hurting someone else.
(Fr Andrew): I know your post was not addressed to me, but I'd like to say that I hear those same sentiments expressed frequently about gay sex. And, not so very long ago, I heard them about inter-racial sex.
In any case, I'm not at all interested in discussing adults having sex with children. I'm more interested in discussing the basis for its prohibition. I'm interested in discussing the basis for all our sexual taboos, as far as that goes...particularly those having to do with kids (reasons on request).
It's just that inter-generational sex (and, by that, I mean sex between children and adults) keeps dominating the conversation.
And I find it interesting, as I said, that the minds of otherwise rational people slam shut when the subject is broached. I'd really like to know why.

(odemus): What kind of mysteries do you think this topic can possibly unravel?
(Fr Andrew): Well, as I said, I'd like to know the basis for it's taboo. Why is this taboo so strong that people get uncomfortable even thinking about it? I've never been one to accept "Any fool can see that!" or "Because that's the way it is!" or "Because I said so!" as reasonable answers to the question, "Why?".
I have my suspicions...I think it's tied up with vulnerability...but I'm really interested in hearing what other people can offer. After giving it rational, non-emotional consideration.

(odemus): Where are the hidden truths to be found?
(Fr Andrew): What "hidden truths"? What are you talking about?

(odemus): What benefit could a discussion about adults having sex with children possibly have?
(Fr Andrew): Less seething, irrational hatred in the world? I think that may be one result of a more open-minded discussion.

Fr.Andrew

(dangin): What the hell are you talking about in the second quote above if not claiming that a sexual relationship between a prepubescent and an adult could benefit the child?
(Fr Andrew): That's what I'm claiming...could. But that's not why you took me to task in your post. You implied that I'd said that it "might be the only "positive" thing in that minor's life". I didn't say that--I said that it may be the only source of nurturing a child gets.

(dangin): And when is it not possible to confort a neglected child "nonsexually" when it is possible to "comfort" them sexually?
(Fr Andrew): I know what you're trying to ask--don't worry. ;-) I've addressed this in another thread also. Basically, I can imagine a scenario when things get out of hand--nothing intentional.

(dangin): Sorry kid, I don't have time to play frisbee, so why don't you suck me off.
(Fr Andrew): The Internet Infidel's forums has apparently lowered their standards for moderators. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

dangin

Ah, the ad hom because I don't mince words. I've been reported to the admins by squeekier wheels than you.

But rather than sharing your imaginary answers to our questions, I think it is time for you to clearly state what you mean.

(dangin): And when is it not possible to confort a neglected child "nonsexually" when it is possible to "comfort" them sexually?
(Fr Andrew): I know what you're trying to ask--don't worry. ;-) I've addressed this in another thread also. Basically, I can imagine a scenario when things get out of hand--nothing intentional.

Don't tell me you "imagine a scenario", spell it out man. Let's hear your scenario clearly and succinctly. Enthrall us with your acumen. In other words, don't dance around, answer the question.

Finally, I talk like this to my mother. e.g. "Mom I was debating the sickest fuck today. . ." Not you of course Fr. Andrews, I'm talking about someone else.

Bree

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

dangin

Thanks Bree, that means a lot from you, since I think I usually spend my time here offending you. What with my distaste for Wisconsin and all.

99Percent

Dangin is suggesting crudely a possible pederasts' attitude according to your suggestions.

Fr.Andrew

(dangin): Ah, the ad hom because I don't mince words.
(Fr Andrew): No ad hominem...you're obviously unfamiliar with the term. That's a personal attack to substitute for arguement. I addressed your strawman...the reference to your potty mouth was extra.
I have no intention of saying anything to the administrator--I just think that you're a poor reflection on the Internet Infidels...and on your upbringing. But that's just me.

I haven't a clue how to find the thread that I posted this in--it was on one of the forums, I can't remember which--but here's what I have in Fr Andrew's Archives.
I can't guarantee that it wasn't edited some.

"Mimi was seven years old and lived in Flat Rock, half-way between Plain View and Christmas Knob on County Rd 123...in a trailer with her mom and dad. Their nearest neighbor was 1/2 a mile away as the crow flies on County Rd 9--across two creeks and some pretty rough terrain.
Sadie's father, Tom, helps neighbors with their wood when he's able, but hasn't been much good since the "incident" in '98--mostly he eats Paxil, drinks coffee flavored brandy and passes out.
Sadie's mom, Esther, works at Brown's Cabins--a "motel" in Plain View. Her income is from the truck drivers that answer her CB call and wander over from I32 to visit her and/or Phyll, the other lady who works at Brown's Cabins...Esther's ride to work and her smack dealer.
Esther and Phyll share more than a profession and a drug addiction it turns out (particularly since the "incident")--and so Esther is sometimes gone, unannounced, for days, or weeks, at a time. Mimi was pretty much on her own...no human contact. No love, no comfort, no attention. She cried a lot. It'd been like that all of her life.

Mimi's great-aunt Reenie (widow of Tom's Uncle Will) lives in Plain View...still in the two room house that she and Will had built with their own hands and moved into when they were married. No kids.
Will died of Black Lung in '86 and Reenie has made do on his miner's pension and what vegetables she can grow. No car. No phone. No pool. No pets. She keeps the house neat and tidy and reads the Bible every day.
Aware of Mimi's circumstances, and being a caring (and lonely) woman, Reenie had begged Esther for years to let Mimi come live with her. One day Mimi showed up in her dooryard and said that Esther and Phyll had dropped her off at the head of the road.

Reenie spends long hours rocking Mimi and singing to her. Hugging her and holding her. Making her feel wanted and cared for. They bond quickly...the lonely old lady and the abandoned child. The quality of both their lives increases greatly.
Mimi officially sleeps on the sofa, but often crawls into the old double bed with Reenie--as kids do. Especially neglected kids. There's something about going to sleep in someone's arms...and, should you awake in the middle of the night, knowing someone's there.

Now, some would say that things should stop here, and perhaps so...but it was not to be.

One night it happened. There was a thunderstorm and, 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 lying in the arms of a woman she had grown to love, tingling and exhausted.
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 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.
And I can see Reenie being hounded by the state on child sexual abuse charges...and blowing her brains out one afternoon with Uncle Will's old 12-gauge."