Fr.Andrew

(ronin~): Asked and answered forthrightly, Fr. Andrew.
(Fr Andrew): Nonsense, you've ignored my point about circumcision.
Thanks.

Mad Kally

And I am so devasted and crushed by your rejection I will stay out of this thread Friar Andrew. (joke) Oh BTW, I am Reverend Kally from the Universal Life Church. Why not? It was free and I have a printer.

Kally

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): It's the last part I question - I don't see any way in which you've proved the sexual activity was benefitical to the child.
(Fr Andrew): I wasn't trying to prove anything. I've never stated that I was out to prove anything. I was offering a hypothetical in which the activity may be beneficial to the child.

(HelenM): Because you're trying to show that something most of us find indistinguishable
from child sexual abuse is not only harmless but beneficial.
(Fr Andrew): No I'm not. I'm trying to illustrate that sexual activity between an adult and a child is not always sexual abuse...that it's possible for it to be harmless and beneficial.

(HelenM): "I don't think interviewing the victims proves anything unless you can establish that the consent of a child is valid..."
(Fr Andrew): I thought you were asking how we could tell if some intergenerational sex can be "beneficial, without allowing more of it". You said nothing about the consent of the child.

Fr.Andrew

(Mad Kally): Oh BTW, I am Reverend Kally from the Universal Life Church. Why not? It was free and I have a printer.
(Fr Andrew): Well! We're fellows of the cloth! I'm ordained in the ULC also--but in 1966 it cost $25 .

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): "...not to be entered into lightly because it can lead to life-changing consequences such as pregnancy and catching terminal diseases."
(Fr Andrew): Suppose we took the dangers of pregnancy and disease off the table. Would it be OK then?

HelenM

How can you call pregnancy simply a danger of sex? Sex wouldn't even exist were it not to cause pregnancy

Helen

HelenM

So you changed my word 'prove' to 'illustrate'. It seems to me that that's not a material change.

I don't understand what point you're making here

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I consider unwanted pregnancy one of the dangers of sexual experimentation among children, sure. That, and disease. I'm asking if there are other reasons to stifle that experimentation. If there were no danger of pregnancy or disease, is there any reason to discourage children from having sex at whatever age they become curious?

And I'm not so sure that sex wouldn't exist if people grew out of the ground like corn. Feels pretty good, as I recall. ;-)

Ronin

I have addressed all of your points consistently with this very offering ~

<bold empasis mine> There are assorted reasons for circumcisions, Fr. Andrew, (which you appear to have thrown in as an afterthought beyond the boundaries set by the OP), none of which are exploitative...and none of them have to do with an adult using another human, deficient in emotional and mental comprehension, as their sexual tool.

Bree

How does a 7 year old have any concept of social stigmas? PS - please learn to use the quote function, it's much easier to read.

it's a 50 year old and a 7 year old, then we've got a problem. Anatomic (sp?) exploration at that age is normal, but actual sex? I'd be wondering where those kids learnt the activity, just as Helen has said. You aren't born knowing the penis goes in the vagina - that's something you learn. Ask my coworker, J. The first time he had sex (at age 11) he couldn't figure out which orfice was which .