Tolerance and Acceptance has its limits

[Sally]

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

It has to do with it, because one reason people stigmatize pedophilia so harshly that they don't seek treatment, is that they seem to think children are innocent, non-sexual beings. Which is just plainly not true.
 

A 3-year-old masturbating -- rubbing a part of their body -- because they've discovered it feels good is not engaging in sex.  To speak of that as having to do with innocence/non-innocence is absurd.  

[Guest]

9 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

People freak out so completely about any sort of sexual contact with a child- even types with no force or cajoling- because they believe children are inherently un-sexual and 'uncorrupted,' and as a result end up hurting them even more. They instill a sense of shame or brokenness. Those families that do not have this reaction do better in raising well-adjusted kids afterwards. 

By and large, children are sexual. The sexual aspect is not what actually hurts the child. What destroys their mind is the abuse of power, forcing them to do something they don't choose to do, manipulations to keep them silent, and the resulting aftermath from the discovery. 

This cycle perpetuates itself by applying this pressure to keep it in the dark. 

The child is not capable of consent and WILL start realizing that the choice was taken away from them once they start developing sexually and becoming aware of sex etc. I explained actual examples of this extensively in the other thread. It's the same as if someone was having sex with you while you were asleep. You're going to be disgusted because while you didn't say no, you were not in any way able to give consent. That's how it feels for someone when they get older when they start to understand that sexual things were done to them as a kid. It's often a deep source of shame, humiliation, rage, pain, and trauma for people who experienced this even if AT THE TIME as a child they didn't say no.. they just didn't understand what was happening, and an ADULT, someone with total control over that child and who understood fully what was happening, took total control of their sexual innocence and naivety and used that for their own (the adults) sexual pleasure. That child was taken advantage of at a time when they did not understand consent or even what sex was and they realize this when they get older and it utterly screws with them psychologically. I did explain all this extensively in my other response to you though.

 

Secondly, children are NOT sexual beings, full stop. Just because someone can experience an orgasm (which yes, many kids can) that does NOT make them 'sexual' as they have literally no understanding of what it actually means to consent to sex. You hear this time and time again from victims who were molested as children but 'consented' to the sex at the time because they didn't know any better. When they get older, they realize that something very, very special (their first sexual encounter) was stolen from them when they were too young to even understand what was happening. They feel dirty, violated, horrified at what happened to them. I see actual pedophiles making arguments like you are here quite often in some of the debates with pedos I've seen on YouTube and quite frankly, it's deeply alarming. Being able to orgasm does NOT make you a sexual being if you are too young to understand what 'consent' means, and what sex actually is. I could orgasm by the age of two, and if a man had started touching me to make me orgasm I possibly wouldn't have understood what was happening at the time and wouldn't have had the knowledge to know whether I even wanted it or not, so maybe wouldn't have said 'no' if I wasn't being physically hurt. However, I would have wanted to hunt that man down and kill him as soon as I got old enough to understand what he'd actually been doing to me (same applies if it was a woman). That's taking total advantage of a child's innocence and lack of understanding about sex for your own sick and twisted sexual pleasure. You're taking consent from someone who is mentally unable to fully give it (in the same way someone would be taking consent from you if they had sex with you while you're asleep). It's not ever okay to suggest a child is a sexual being because it's just not true and encourages actual pedophiles to believe that them having sex with kids (causing them permanent psychological harm) is actually okay. It is never, ever okay to act sexually with a child.

 

Serious question that I actually want you to answer: if you found out now that your grandad or uncle had been having sex with you when you were two, and made a 'fun game' out of you giving him oral sex and him giving back to you, would you truly be okay with that? Would you be like ''Oh hey kids are sexual beings so it's totally fine that an adult male was taking advantage of me sexually when I was too young to understand what was happening!'' ...or would you be sickened that someone had done that to you at a time when you just didn't understand enough about sex to even begin to be able to give informed consent? Can you truly in all honestly say you'd be fine with an adult male having sex with you as a kid?

 

6 hours ago, Chimeric said:

Edit - And for the record, it really does sound like you're trying to justify sex with children by virtue of the fact that they aren't as sexually innocent as we'd all like to believe. It's a little bit alarming, I'm not gonna lie.

Yep, I'm feeling the same. :/

 

 

[Guest]

Another way to look at it: If you got really, really drunk, so drunk that you totally black out, and wake up naked beside a man who you find quite literally repulsive, and who you know didn't have anything to drink the night before. Would you be totally okay that he screwed you knowing just how drunk you were? You were probably all giggly and flirty before you passed out, and hey, you're a sexual being right? So it's totally fine that he screwed you. Or would you be upset that, while he might not have raped you (how can you remember? maybe you said 'yes' and loved it at the time) someone still had sex with you at a time when you were literally completely unable to give informed consent, and they were 100% in control of their senses and knew you weren't actually fully aware of what was happening? That's what it's like for kids who are taken sexual advantage of by adults. They might not know it at the time (just like you don't know at the time of that total inebriation that something you wouldn't otherwise agree with is happening to you) but when they get older and become aware of what sex is, and what consent is, they realize quite quickly that someone with power over them took total advantage of them sexually.

 

If you answer that you'd be 100% fine knowing that an adult had sex with you when you were a kid, and that it you'd be super okay knowing a sober man had sex with you while you were too drunk to even be aware of what was happening, then we can end this convo right here because you'd be making it very clear that your ideas about healthy sexual relationships are very, very different from the way most people think of when they imagine a healthy consensual sexual encounter.

[Garion]

18 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

I said twice- that we have to keep it illegal- that we can't go back- and explained why- where are you getting that from?

While you mentioned you want it illegal, you then say that child sexual abuse isn't really that bad, at least that's how I'm reading it. And to understand what you're arguing, would it be accurate to say that your position is that if society changed its view on sex, adult-child sex wouldn't be abusive or trauma-causing, or at least less traumatic? If that is what you're arguing, I will have to emphatically agree with other posters that such a position is, to say the least, incorrect and dangerous to propogate.

 

15 hours ago, Chimeric said:

It's not natural. 

 

If you can find me a paper that indicates in nature an instance where an animal sexually interacts exclusively with sexually immature members of its species - avoiding them once they've reached the age of sexual maturity - then I am more inclined to reconsider that. Instances of sexual interaction with members of a cohort including the young is not evidence in favor of pedophilia occurring in nature.

Initially, when I was going to write my reply to this statement, I was going to try expounding on the bonobos and do research on other species. But then I remembered that would be arguing within a faulty premise.

Nature is not a basis for morality or immorality. Let's be honest, nature is brutal. Great white sharks eat their babies if they stay to close. Lions kill off the former pride-head's cubs. Preying manti eat their lovers. Mallard ducks reproduce through rape. Just because something's in nature doesn't mean it's moral. And just because something doesn't happen in nature doesn't mean it's immoral or doesn't happen with humans. Our not only use of tools, but dependence on them is unique to the human species. Not to mention religion is exclusive to humans and it's largely considered moral despite, according to the natural world, being unnatural.

 

I'll reiterate that from what we know by the testimonials of pedophiles, it's an unchosen set of attractions. You can rail against it and how it's unnatural all you want, but that's not going to stop there being pedophiles. What we can do however is remove the stigma surrounding pedophilia so that when people find out they're pedophiles, which usually occurs during the teen years like any other sexual orientation, they don't feel helpless, doomed to offend, or see suicide as the only way out. And if someone truly cares about finding a way to reduce that rate of pedophiles abusing children or committing suicide, that's one of the things we need to do.  

[Chimeric]

6 minutes ago, Garion said:

Nature is not a basis for morality or immorality.

I completely agree, but my statement was based on pedophilia being unnatural.

 

 

If you go back through this thread, you'll see that I agree with you that we need to make sure that (non-offending) pedophiles are comfortable enough to approach someone for help without immediately landing themselves in prison/etc. That doesn't mean that I have to agree that it's at all a "natural" thing - and if it doesn't occur elsewhere in nature, it's unnatural, by definition. 

 

[Evil]

On 10/02/2018 at 9:35 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

People freak out so completely about any sort of sexual contact with a child- even types with no force or cajoling- because they believe children are inherently un-sexual and 'uncorrupted,' and as a result end up hurting them even more.

I would like an example of when you honestly believe it is acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child. What are these situations that you think we should not "freak out" over? I cannot think of any, not a single one.

 

It would be really easy for me to read what you wrote in this quote and lose my shit at you so help me out here, I want to understand your thinking.

[WoodwindWhistler]

"There is no middle ground when children are involved."

You're spectacularly failing to realize that the entire *focus* of my post was how to not harm children further. When I say cultural "middle ground" I am entirely talking about the shame heaped - sometimes unintentionally because of all the assumptions I outlined- upon victims. Shame was the common thread in that post. Not any occurrence. 
 

On 2/10/2018 at 7:53 PM, Sally said:

A 3-year-old masturbating -- rubbing a part of their body -- because they've discovered it feels good is not engaging in sex.  To speak of that as having to do with innocence/non-innocence is absurd.  

You're right, culturally conflating sexuality with innocence is an absurd thing that humans do. If a 17 year old brutally went after another human being with a baseball bat but had not had sex yet, they are clearly not "innocent." If an eleven year old is forced to look after her younger sibling "like an adult" but has not had sex yet, she is still "less innocent" and carefree than a typical eleven year old. And we all know about the idea of an 'old soul.' But, the concept is still readily applied in less drastic ways, as I explained. 

As for whether masturbating is sex- well, that's a whole topic unto itself. Autosexuality is not the *same* as allosexuality, surely, but they're not entirely different realms, either. 

 

6 hours ago, Evil said:

I would like an example of when you honestly believe it is acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child. What are these situations that you think we should not "freak out" over? I cannot think of any, not a single one.

 

It would be really easy for me to read what you wrote in this quote and lose my shit at you so help me out here, I want to understand your thinking.

22 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

It's not ever okay to suggest a child is a sexual being because it's just not true and encourages actual pedophiles to believe that them having sex with kids (causing them permanent psychological harm) is actually okay. It is never, ever okay to act sexually with a child.

I don't think speeding or other traffic violations are OK to do, but I do think the regressive law structure hurts poor people in complex ways and there are better ways to discourage people from doing it. 

All right, give me a minute, I will get to a point, I promise. If I were instructed to carry a "Kerry is Scary" sign when I was in elementary school, I did not understand nearly any of the background or implications of what I was asked to do. However, in that instant I would have said 'yes', therefore becoming a political tool. Is politics more personal than sex? Well, most would say no, but a significant portion, perhaps say of this forum even, would say yes. Because of their individual relationship to each. I believe there have even been preliminary cases where various, seemingly innocuous photos of kids online have affected their current employment, and even impacted them emotionally through social fallout. 

If you ask a child to eat an ice cream cone too frequently, and they like it, does the consent become retroactively retracted when they get type 2 diabetes at fourteen and have to deal with body shame on top of that? Does the situation suck? Yes. Did someone do something immoral? Yes. Does the teen now squarely have the personal responsibility to pick up the pieces? Yes. "Hunting" the parent down does not fix anything. And if we're positing a rose-colored lens world where these kinds of things would never happen if only x, y, and z were implemented, I have a bridge to sell you.

Now, what WOULD help? What is in OUR power, because we cannot government survey or break and enter into every corner of property where every single child lives? 

Let me give an example that would likely prevent this "don't know what sex is" stage and mental anguish that, anthropologically speaking, is particularly a facet of Western repressive culture (other places, adults have sex within view of kids, and this is perfectly normal and, according to rigorous study, not at all damaging).

Now, here is a middle ground worth investigating: 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lea-grover/this-is-what-sex-positive-parenting-really-looks-like_b_5516707.html

We are setting up kids to not act and freeze and clam up when something goes awry, because of all the silence and mystery and discomfort unnecessarily surrounding their understanding of sex. 

 

[Sally]

44 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

 

On 2/10/2018 at 4:53 PM, Sally said:

A 3-year-old mas. turbating -- rubbing a part of their body -- because they've discovered it feels good is not engaging in sex.  To speak of that as having to do with innocence/non-innocence is absurd.  

You're right, culturally conflating sexuality with innocence is an absurd thing that humans do.

That is not way I said, or what I was alluding to.   I think probably just everyone else understood what I was saying:  That to talk about a toddler having engaged in sex is absurd.  It has nothing to do with culture.  And it's not only absurd; it's hideous, because you must know that what criminal pedophiles say is that "The child led me on; she/he wanted sex."

 

You are wandering around the bush trying out every semantic way of saying that having sex with a young child is not bad.   That's just revolting.

[WoodwindWhistler]

1 minute ago, Sally said:

That is not way I said, or what I was alluding to.   I think probably just everyone else understood what I was saying:  That to talk about a toddler having engaged in sex is absurd.  It has nothing to do with culture.  And it's not only absurd; it's hideous, because you must know that what criminal pedophiles say is that "The child led me on; she/he wanted sex."

 

You are wandering around the bush trying out every semantic way of saying that having sex with a young child is not bad.   That's just revolting.

That reasoning doesn't hold for rapists, so why would it hold for pedophiles?

I think you're intentionally ignoring the article I posted and just want to bear your chest and fight. 

[Sally]

29 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

That reasoning doesn't hold for rapists, so why would it hold for pedophiles?

I think you're intentionally ignoring the article I posted and just want to bear your chest and fight. 

You're making no sense.

 

Both rapists and pedophile abusers say it was the victim's fault.

 

And no, I don't want to "bear" my chest.   You've said enough on here that there's no need to read that article.  

[WoodwindWhistler]

38 minutes ago, Sally said:

You're making no sense.

 

Both rapists and pedophile abusers say it was the victim's fault.

 

And no, I don't want to "bear" my chest.   You've said enough on here that there's no need to read that article.  

And I never said it was their fault, so why did you even bring it up??

Talk about not making sense. 

Okay, so you get to attack me without even actively listening to what I have to say.

(Heh, I think I mentally conflated "beat" and "bare" while I was typing and that was what resulted) 

[Sally]

We are free on AVEN (and in all of life) to criticize and disagree with someone else's ideas about an issue.  That is not an attack.  

[Evil]

@WoodwindWhistler With due respect, I did not ask for examples of eating ice cream. Your words signal to pretty much everyone else here on this thread that you consider some sexual acts between children and adults to be allowable. So I repeat, I would like an example of when you honestly believe it is acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child.

[WoodwindWhistler]

I'm not angling for them to be allowable, I'm trying to explain why the attitude and approach to the problem is letting harm happen AND causing more harm. 

What "teach people not to rape" might actually look like:
 

 

[Evil]

19 hours ago, Evil said:

On 10/02/2018 at 9:35 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

People freak out so completely about any sort of sexual contact with a child- even types with no force or cajoling- because they believe children are inherently un-sexual and 'uncorrupted,' and as a result end up hurting them even more.

I would like an example of when you honestly believe it is acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child. What are these situations that you think we should not "freak out" over? I cannot think of any, not a single one.

 

Why are you avoiding the question? These are your words, nobody else said it. So for a third time, I will ask: Please give an example of when you honestly believe it is acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child.

 

In case you think I am point blank ignoring your links: In regards to the article you linked I would agree that teaching children sex positivity is a good thing, no one should be taught to feel shame about their body or of their awakening sexuality but this does not make them fair game for adults. They are still children. They are still innocents and they are still very much off limits.

 

In regards to the TED talk I would agree that victims of abuse need more support so that they do not, in turn, become the perpetrators but I fail to see how it backs up any of the argument you have presented.

[WoodwindWhistler]

12 hours ago, Evil said:

Why are you avoiding the question? These are your words, nobody else said it. So for a third time, I will ask: Please give an example of when you honestly believe it is acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child.

 

In case you think I am point blank ignoring your links: In regards to the article you linked I would agree that teaching children sex positivity is a good thing, no one should be taught to feel shame about their body or of their awakening sexuality but this does not make them fair game for adults. They are still children. They are still innocents and they are still very much off limits.

 

In regards to the TED talk I would agree that victims of abuse need more support so that they do not, in turn, become the perpetrators but I fail to see how it backs up any of the argument you have presented.

I don't think it's acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child. 
 
I've said it three separate times:

"keep it illegal" 

"[we] are definitely not fit"

"I don't think speeding or other traffic violations are OK to do, but I do think the regressive law structure hurts poor people in complex ways and there are better ways to discourage people from doing it."

If you choose not listen, that's one thing, but I've answered the question. I'm not "avoiding" anything!

"Fair game"? What????

We're talking about how to handle it when it does happen, and how to go about preventing it. Not whether it's immoral for it to happen or not. 

What frameworks we use to process it are vital victims' views of their own experience, reframing, and therefore alleviate suffering. LGBT people experience mental distress because of society's views on sex and gender. Victims experience *more* mental distress because of how they were programmed by society. To what extent that is true is besides the point- moving forward with their lives and letting go is only going to be helped by being aware of how they've been set up to fail, and set up to react, and that it is not their fault. In a world that employed the type of parenting above, instead of trying to "shield" children from sexual discussions, or handing them parents' hangups about sex, the FIRST time an adult tried something they would know what was happening, and to tell someone immediately and stop the entire process of grooming, threatening, etc. And dare I say, yes, if we ever get to that point, it probably wouldn't be any bigger a deal (emotionally, not legally or interventionally speaking) than a guy laying a hand on the leg of a woman at a bar and her promptly moving away from him. Upsetting and momentarily invasive? Yes. Life-destroying? No. 

And perpetrators, like drug addicts, need *treatment* and *understanding* as much, or more than they need punishment. I think you agree on that point. 

Hating and attacking them, magnified in the frameworks I've outlined, is counterproductive to protecting children.

And ponder this. Did you ever consider, either, in the case of incest in particular, that many families, no matter how horrible, still have a warped sense of loyalty? I know someone personally who's had to struggle with this. 

All that yelling and screaming for a witchunt? IT CAN ALSO SILENCE REAL VICTIMS of incest who do not share your easy black-and-white view of the matter. If you and society were to assure them that their family would get the *help* in addition to the confinement and separation they needed, on the other hand, they would be more forthcoming. It's messed up, sure. But it's real. We have to deal with the way things are, not the way we wish things were.

[Evil]

@WoodwindWhistler My choice to ignore your analogies is directly related to them having absolutely nothing to do with the question you have been asked. It really is that simple.

 

Your exact words: "People freak out so completely about any sort of sexual contact with a child- even types with no force or cajoling"

 

My exact words: "I would like an example of when you honestly believe it is acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child. What are these situations that you think we should not "freak out" over? I cannot think of any, not a single one."

 

I do not deny that you stated to keep it illegal but your only reasoning to why was because some of our species are daft enough to eat Tide Pods. I would hope people have more substantial reasoning like: they are children and deserve to be protected from predatory adults.

 

It isn't that I think your argument is poor, just poorly presented.

 

4 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

I know someone personally who's had to struggle with this. 

For the record, I think it would be safer if you didn't assume we all come from a position of ignorance on this subject.

[WoodwindWhistler]

38 minutes ago, Evil said:

@WoodwindWhistler My choice to ignore your analogies is directly related to them having absolutely nothing to do with the question you have been asked. It really is that simple.

 

Your exact words: "People freak out so completely about any sort of sexual contact with a child- even types with no force or cajoling"

 

My exact words: "I would like an example of when you honestly believe it is acceptable for an adult to be sexual with a child. What are these situations that you think we should not "freak out" over? I cannot think of any, not a single one."

 

I do not deny that you stated to keep it illegal but your only reasoning to why was because some of our species are daft enough to eat Tide Pods. I would hope people have more substantial reasoning like: they are children and deserve to be protected from predatory adults.

 

It isn't that I think your argument is poor, just poorly presented.

You don't think my argument is poor? OK. What exactly *do* you think my argument is? State it back to me, in your own words. How would you phrase it? I do notice that you unlike others, have not maintained denying the reality of sexuality of children, as other people on the thread have. So, I guess I believe you when you say you are actually trying to understand what I'm trying to get at. 

The analogies were giving more emotionally neutral examples of wrong things people do to children that they still must deal with. Those things were not illegal, as is necessary with molestation, but the point remains is that the kids have to pick up the pieces. I'm ultimately suggesting ways to do that. One of my favorite articles on an also emotion-neutral examples of "reframing" is this https://www.artofmanliness.com/2017/05/09/reframing-for-resilience/

Do I expect this to be a "magical cure"? No. But I think, especially after talking to another person on the subject, that the general script of artificially inflated hopelessness, despair, or rage that is rooted in this fundamental misunderstanding of sexuality that is usually projected onto victims is not doing anything to assist them through their trials. 

If a victim thinks that they have "failed" in some kind of benchmark of "getting to puberty" without anything sexual happening to them, then they, as I said earlier in the thread, will get stuck in the loop of seeing themselves "abhorrently different from the 'normies' and . . . feel shame for stuff that is out of their control." People reinforce this through being uncomfortable and acting strange around them, even to the point of avoiding them sometimes. That's not conducive to moving forward. They want to be treated as normal. One step would be *everyone*- starting with the "normies", accepting the biological reality that these things happen in other primates and it is not some sort of supremely strange thing it is purported to be. If the goal is to live life as normally as possible, it would be helpful to point out they aren't all that different from A type of normal, it's just not a societal normal. 

And again, I would *like* to be able to share the psychologist who explained all of this, with examples from her own long experience with child victims. But, I believe it was lost in one of my two computer crashes. So I'm only able to reproduce the gist of what happened.

[Evil]

Your argument as far as I see it is that if we as a society are more open and honest with children about sex and sexuality that they will grow up to be more well-adjusted adults, thus lowering the chances of them going on to become an offender. Basically breaking the cycle. 

 

While I do agree that older children develop a variation of sexuality, I believe that is one of self-discovery, not sexual pleasure or shared encounters. Adult sexuality and child sexuality are not comparable in my opinion, not in any way, shape or form.

 

You cannot simply say "People freak out so completely about any sort of sexual contact with a child- even types with no force or cajoling" and then not specifically address it when asked for clarification. It has left you looking intellectually dishonest in my eyes and predatory in others. You have self-sabotaged your entire position.

[Chimeric]

2 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

feel shame for stuff that is out of their control."

A child has no agency to consent to sex whether we decide to classify them as sexual or not (we shouldn't; the biological cocktail that contributes to full sexual maturity and development doesn't kick in until around the teenage years, and solid decision making abilities in regards to that sexuality may be delayed by a few years, still). Touching a child sexually is still inappropriate, for all of the power imbalances that you've already mentioned coupled with the fact that their body is their body. Until they are capable of making informed decisions about what happens to it, they're off limits. Full stop. Even adults with all the agency in the world suffer when their body is violated. Some of that probably is magnified by society's response (a la reporter's TedTalk), in which case your message really ought to be "Hey let's not treat them like plaguebearers." But let's be very clear - they are victims. It isn't their fault, but telling them "Eh, monkeys do it" or "eh, they're sexual and not as innocent as you think" is dismissive at best and comes reprehensibly close to blaming the victim. You know, the toddlers. The exact toddlers who would allow a person to feed them ice cream cones until they get sick, because the ability for them to determine future consequence is incredibly limited. 

 

Look, dude, you're probably trying to communicate a message of compassion or something, but if you're gonna make statements about kids being sexual and insinuating some sexual encounters are okay, it is 100% on you to make sure your message is crystal clear. 

[WoodwindWhistler]

6 hours ago, Evil said:

Your argument as far as I see it is that if we as a society are more open and honest with children about sex and sexuality that they will grow up to be more well-adjusted adults, thus lowering the chances of them going on to become an offender. Basically breaking the cycle. 

 

While I do agree that older children develop a variation of sexuality, I believe that is one of self-discovery, not sexual pleasure or shared encounters. Adult sexuality and child sexuality are not comparable in my opinion, not in any way, shape or form.

 

You cannot simply say "People freak out so completely about any sort of sexual contact with a child- even types with no force or cajoling" and then not specifically address it when asked for clarification. It has left you looking intellectually dishonest in my eyes and predatory in others. You have self-sabotaged your entire position.

Well, I will keep that in mind the next time this topic comes up somewhere. Thanks. 

 

On 2/12/2018 at 4:22 AM, Sally said:

We are free on AVEN (and in all of life) to criticize and disagree with someone else's ideas about an issue.  That is not an attack.  

Honey, if you criticize someone without reading the entirety of their position, that is an attack. You want to play semantics instead, come at me. I'll come up with a better word that suits your lazy tastes. It occurs to me to type in "synonyms for underhanded" in Google. Adjectives are more fun than nouns anyway. If you have enough free time to read this whole thread and keep coming back and keep getting pissed off, you have enough time to do a thorough job of it. 

Two other people have. 

I bet you're a hoot in other political discussions.
 

5 hours ago, Chimeric said:

A child has no agency to consent to sex whether we decide to classify them as sexual or not (we shouldn't; the biological cocktail that contributes to full sexual maturity and development doesn't kick in until around the teenage years, and solid decision making abilities in regards to that sexuality may be delayed by a few years, still). Touching a child sexually is still inappropriate, for all of the power imbalances that you've already mentioned coupled with the fact that their body is their body. Until they are capable of making informed decisions about what happens to it, they're off limits. Full stop. Even adults with all the agency in the world suffer when their body is violated. Some of that probably is magnified by society's response (a la reporter's TedTalk), in which case your message really ought to be "Hey let's not treat them like plaguebearers." But let's be very clear - they are victims. It isn't their fault, but telling them "Eh, monkeys do it" or "eh, they're sexual and not as innocent as you think" is dismissive at best and comes reprehensibly close to blaming the victim. You know, the toddlers. The exact toddlers who would allow a person to feed them ice cream cones until they get sick, because the ability for them to determine future consequence is incredibly limited. 

 

Look, dude, you're probably trying to communicate a message of compassion or something, but if you're gonna make statements about kids being sexual and insinuating some sexual encounters are okay, it is 100% on you to make sure your message is crystal clear. 

Yeah, you don't have to keep repeating the point I already addressed, thanks.

I'd also say that adults have literally "less agency" if they sport toxic beliefs about sex, too, like "owing" someone. 

(I'm not a dude.)

People cannot control who they are attracted to. They DO have control over their actions. Sometimes. The vast majority of the time, what erodes that control is some type of suffering. 80% of rapists were abused as children. The other 20% were likely not abused in *obvious* ways, or merely severely neglected. (a father who fails so spectacularly in teaching his son not to rape, for example, or the more passive iteration, starving them of affection or acceptance so much that they seek it forcibly elsewhere, is unlikely to contribute to a child's general wellbeing in all other arenas). Maybe singular digit percentages are genuinely sociopathic. So, I'm going to suggest we behave based on the numbers. We cannot control how we feel. But we can control how we react and respond. Sometimes. 

One difference between a victim who lashes out from pain at another person and a victim who doesn't is when they were discovered. What increases the chance of discovery? The actions and approaches I've suggested on this thread.

[WoodwindWhistler]

On a lighter note: I had a dream last night about eating roasted cockroaches.

Pretty sure that's a subconscious metaphor for holding my nose, seeking out, and digesting the facts that no one else cares to.

I guess since I write about spider people in my novel, and their diet, (points to avatar) it was not as upsetting an experience as it might have been. Still gross though.

[Chimeric]

1 hour ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

(I'm not a dude.)

I apologize.

 

Quote

People cannot control who they are attracted to. They DO have control over their actions. Sometimes. The vast majority of the time, what erodes that control is some type of suffering. 80% of rapists were abused as children. The other 20% were likely not abused in *obvious* ways, or merely severely neglected.

Wait, are we talking about pedophiles or rape victims?

 

How many pedophiles are pedophiles because they themselves were raped or abused as a child? Aren't these two different things?

 

1 hour ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

What increases the chance of discovery? The actions and approaches I've suggested on this thread.

What is it that prevents a child who has been molested from telling their parents - shame at having been touched sexually, or the fact that an adult has told them not to tell anyone? In either case, what does equating having just been molested with "normal [monkey] behavior" do, other than telling our children that it's okay for that to have happened? Assuming the next step is to get the pedophile charged with having molested a child, that's a pretty conflicting message, don't you think? "Well honey, it's natural - but we're sending him to jail for as long as the law will allow." 

 

1 hour ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Pretty sure that's a subconscious metaphor for holding my nose, seeking out, and digesting the facts that no one else cares to.

I cut open dead things to figure out what killed them, for a living - don't worry, it isn't just you.

[WoodwindWhistler]

1 hour ago, Chimeric said:

Wait, are we talking about pedophiles or rape victims?
 

How many pedophiles are pedophiles because they themselves were raped or abused as a child? Aren't these two different things?

I admit I don't know the specific stats for how many pedophiles are the result of molestation inflicted on them in children. The 80% number was for rapists particularly.

 

Maybe
@Garion could help us with that one. 

So are you proposing making some special rule where people who have proof of abuse are lighter treated than the others? That could get really ugly really fast. What type of abuse is the "right" kind? Better to just address them equally. Of course, I guess some version of "insanity plea" might fit for existing mental trauma. 
 

1 hour ago, Chimeric said:

Assuming the next step is to get the pedophile charged with having molested a child, that's a pretty conflicting message, don't you think? "Well honey, it's natural - but we're sending him to jail for as long as the law will allow." 

Pretty sure forcible rape is "natural" too. Chimpanzees are much more violent than bonobos. Doesn't mean we should allow it, either. 

I don't think a person should necessarily go away "as long as the law will allow" currently, as therapy and rehabilitation should be the focus. Refer back to the link about Germany. 

 

1 hour ago, Chimeric said:

I cut open dead things to figure out what killed them, for a living - don't worry, it isn't just you.

You have bad dreams about it?

I identify strongly with Dana Scully- eating a sandwich nonchalantly next to a corpse. Of course, that's probably very much a fictionalized joke. Don't know if there's any truth to it. 



 

[Chimeric]

2 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

So are you proposing making some special rule where people who have proof of abuse are lighter treated than the others?

No; I was approaching the topic from the lens of pedophilia, not child molestation/rape in general. I haven't given the latter the thought required to take a stance on it, yet, though I suspect it will be similar.

 

Quote

Pretty sure forcible rape is "natural" too. Chimpanzees are much more violent than bonobos. Doesn't mean we should allow it, either. 

Agreed, which is why I am confused when the argument that "monkeys touch their young" is brought up.

 

Quote

I don't think a person should necessarily go away "as long as the law will allow" currently, as therapy and rehabilitation should be the focus. Refer back to the link about Germany. 

For a non-offending pedophile, yes. For someone who has had sex with a child, there is no excuse to be had; I don't think we will ever agree on this point.

 

Quote

You have bad dreams about it?

Depends on the answers I find. 

[Garion]

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

I admit I don't know the specific stats for how many pedophiles are the result of molestation inflicted on them in children. The 80% number was for rapists particularly.

 

Maybe
@Garion could help us with that one

Disclaimer: I need to catch up with this thread and am replying to this isolated part of the post in a vacuum. I mention this in case my post gets taken the wrong way because the conversation shifted in a way I was not aware of.

 

To answer ypur question I don't have any stats that wouldn't be available for page 1 of Google. Anecdotally I've read testimonials of a couple pedophiles that believe being molested as a child contributed to their pedophilia. In other cases there was no abuse. Hard data is hard to come by overall though as large-scale data on non-offending pedophiles is scarce due to people not wanting others to know and so that can skew numbers when only offending pedophiles contribute to the data. But more men, by a significant percent, are pedophiles than women. Not sure if that's useful, but it's something.

[Guest]

Many people are molested as kids and don't grow up to be pedophiles, just as some people who were never molested can grow up to be pedophiles. And even if someone was molested as a kid, that still doesn't make it okay to molest children yourself when you grow up.

 

I know there are times when someone is molested as a kid and grow up not thinking there's anything wrong with that. That's the opposite reaction to overtly experiencing  trauma. That's usually when a lot of 'kind' 'painless' grooming happens to the child, so they think they are 'helping' the adult by giving them a handjob or oral whatever. Sometimes the adult will explain it like 'granddad needs help going to the toilet' for example, and ask the kid to 'squeeze his privates'. Then the kids grows up thinking kids are sexualized beings and that molestation isn't actually bad for a kid, (just because they didn't experience pain and don't feel bad about the experience, as a direct result of the grooming which is a known pedo tactic). They may even feel sorry for the pedophile and say things like 'he was just a lonely old man and it's wrong of people to be angry for him wanting sexual comfort with me when I was 8'. It's very, very sad, but this just shows the kind of damage that can be done to a kid that experiences this kind of painless molestation. So it's easy to see how someone could potentially end up being a pedophile (or at least, not think it's wrong if they have sex with kids) if they're convinced that kids are sexual beings anyway and may even like being molested as a direct result of having had a pedophile groom them when they were young. *sigh*

 

I just have to say that anyone who makes excuses for pedophiles by saying things like 'he's just a lonely old man' or whatever are pretty much saying that rape isn't bad. I mean, the rapist was just lonely right? Poor guy just had to force a woman to have sex with him :c And hey, if he drugged her first then she didn't even feel it and didn't say no, so that's not bad at all, right? He just needed to have sex so you have no right to be mad at him, what about his feelings??? ..That's exactly what I hear when I read about people making excuses for people who sexually molest children.

[WoodwindWhistler]

12 hours ago, Chimeric said:

Agreed, which is why I am confused when the argument that "monkeys touch their young" is brought up.

I've already explained that pedophilia has earned some sort of special status as 'unnatural'. Even over and above LGBT folks. It's also had loads of additional cultural baggage heaped upon it. The 'stork' has been dropping off lies in great numbers. I bet if the Santa Claus myth was shown to result in unequipped adults leaving their houses unlocked at night, we'd drop it pretty fast. A mother who patted her daughter on the head and sent her to a party where she knew the punch was spiked- the correlation here being children are at all times under some sort of "drug" of childhood, per Ficto's comparison- I think we'd all consider her a pretty bad parent. That article example lifts at least this drug of unknowing- which is wantonly applied to children who, let's face it, *have* to leave their house and be around adults or be shut-ins, and leaves only the lesser corresponding 'alcohol' of childhood, I suppose. 

I don't lead an ordinary sexual life, so I guess I have a perspective that others who have highly personalized it to themselves do not. 

I know people who would have come out with their abuse a lot sooner- in some cases, like decades sooner- if we followed Germany's model. They still wrestle with the fallout. I can only speculate that this is because for most people, sex is personal in a way that someone, say, breaking into your house, is not. Interpersonal, as well. And of course, this is all complicated by the fact of the fierce and controversial repressed memories debate going on in psychological circles. If a victim who remembered much later had lower stakes to face and a smaller gauntlet to run in calling someone out, then they would do it more often. 
 

8 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

He just needed to have sex so you have no right to be mad at him, what about his feelings??? ..That's exactly what I hear when I read about people making excuses for people who sexually molest children.

Rape is wrong. We're not discussing "Tolerance and Acceptance" in the sense of letting wrong things go on, but in the sense of being accepting of people who want to or who have done wrong things. To not, for instance, wish for their suffering to increase, such as wishing hell or castration on them, as plenty of people in these discussions have in the past. That sort of reasoning (or rather, non-reasoning) leads to stiffer sentences, perceived future social ostracization upon discovery, and therefore concealment, and isolation, which, not to sound like a broken record here, hurts children more in the end, counter-intuitive though it may seem. 

Molestation is wrong, or at least way too complicated to be allowable in any way.

As an aspiring girl scout leader, and possibly teacher, there is absolutely no scenario in which, if someone told me they were molested, I would not report it.

But, since I am not omniscient, perhaps there are people out there who have approaching a child and made triply sure that a child knows what they ask, and the resulting adult never tells anyone and lives an otherwise ordinary sexual life. There are whole societies who have set up rites of passage involving adult males and pubescent boys. (current ones, as well as the ancient Greeks) Why no one debates about it nearly as much as other starkly immoral things, like, say, FGM, I am unclear on. I only know that the thousandfold human experience of a valid life is far, far more varied than makes your average vanilla WASP cis straight Americans comfortable.

That is why, I suppose, I am accepting of a myriad of weird people, whether it has to do with sexuality particularly or not. Two of my best friends consider themselves a total waste of space due to their internalized perception of themselves by society. I don't. My entire family seems rather offbeat and black sheep, too, so maybe that has something to do with it. My mother could not stand predatory corporate culture, even though she was smart enough. My brother, at the end of his first college year, is only just getting his footing socially. My uncle never married, but has traveled to 49 of the 50 states. My mother's family is more normal, as far as I can tell, but they are not related to her by blood. I never knew my blood grandmother, but when my grandfather passed away several years ago, because I only had an extremely blurry recollection of him, I had to learn all sorts of things about him secondhand. 

Anyway, once you get into anthropology, your concept of what to 'measure' people by is greatly expanded. You learn not to poison yourself with hate all the time. Or maybe that last one is more of a philosophical thing, though it is backed by plenty of science. Hate, in addition to lust, even has addictive and corrosive qualities, according to neuroscience. Not coincidentally I think, two thirds of drug addicts also report child abuse. Suffering leads to addiction of all types, including garden variety hate. 

Me, I am having a very satisfying convo with Zatarra about something else that makes aforementioned citizens uncomfortable, which is monastic and/or celibate life. So, ya know, it goes both ways. For a "cultural melting pot" we can sure be unaware and rigid in our thinking.

[Chimeric]

55 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

I've already explained that pedophilia has earned some sort of special status as 'unnatural

It is unnatural. 

 

The papers you cite are monkeys touching monkeys of all ages, including the young. Pedophilia is specifically attraction to the young. Those aren't comparable. Find a paper telling me otherwise and I'll concede it's natural, but until then I cannot believe that sexual attraction specifically to sexually immature individuals is natural.

 

I'm glad you maintain relationships with people of all walks of life. For the record, I am in favor of showing compassion to non-offending pedophiles in an effort to get them help and recovery. The second they harm a child, they have crossed into absolutely unforgivable territory. Those of us who draw that line in the sand are not lesser for having done so. 

[Sally]

1 hour ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

I've already explained that pedophilia has earned some sort of special status as 'unnatural'. Even over and above LGBT folks. .

Wow.

 

"LGBT folks" are adults, capable of consent.   Children are not.