Are children harmed by early sexual contact?
November 22nd 2006 01:15
Well, depends on the circumstances, seems to be the main idea. In particular, it depends on whether your reaction to your early sexual contact is positive or negative.
"[P]ositively evaluated early sexual experiences would be associated with greater erotophilia, more acceptance of various sexual behaviors for self and others, and greater sexual satisfaction" -- "Perceptions of Early Sexual Experiences and Adult Sexual Adjustment", 1996, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, volume 8(3), pp 37-59.
The most comprehensive paper I've found, based on a quick internet skim, was a summary of 30 studies (Constantine, LL, “The effects of early sexual experiences: A review and synthesis of research”, in Constantine, LL and Martinson, FM (edd), Children and sex: New findings, new perspectives, 1981, pp 217-44). It discusses, among other things, the controversial issue of adult-child contact.
An extract from the abstract:
"Studies suggest that sexual encounters are not intrinsically a problem for children, but rather for adults. Studies refute many of the fears of adults. The anthropological literature shows that sexual pursuits need not interfere with other pursuits in childhood. Furthermore, the vast majority of children with early homosexual experiences of any kind do not become homosexual as adults.
The article addresses the question of whether children ever initiate or willingly participate in sexual relationships with adults. Stories of the children and adults involved conflict, especially in criminal cases. However, research and clinical reports leave little doubt that some children do initiate the contacts and many participate willingly. Nine studies in the review confirmed this, although initiative on the part of the child was rare in father-daughter incest.
Various researchers have shown that the adult and the child in such interactions have different interests. The child wants affection and attention, not necessarily sex. Even when the child is interested in sexual activity, his interest is different from the adult’s.
Those children who actively participate in the sexual activity are more likely to engage in sex play in general, to experience pleasure in the contact with adults, to evaluate the experiences positively, and to be sexually active as young adults...
Most of these experiences did not involve physical force. Those that did resulted in negative reactions...
Fourteen studies reported that outcomes depended on the presence of force, coercion, or non-voluntary participation. The author writes, 'It appears from this analysis that a child’s perception of control, the ability to choose or reject participation in incest or sex with adults or siblings, is an essential ingredient in a healthy outcome from the experience, and this matter is as often decided by the ability to end an undesired relationship as it is by active entry into a desired one'.
An important question is whether a particular child of a certain age in a particular situation can realistically consent to sexual activity. Informed consent requires not only knowledge but also ability to resist successfully. Particularly important to consider are cases of passive acceptance, when the child seems to cooperate but is actually unwilling. Most studies lump these situations in with either willing or unwilling incidents.
The few that don’t conclude that these children may be the worst harmed. They feel confused, humiliated, guilty, and ashamed, yet helpless to end the sexual activity. This is most likely to occur when the age difference or role of the adult makes it more difficult for the child to decline.
Sixteen studies found that family environment had a large impact on the outcome of the sexual activity. Studies finding primarily negative outcomes included many children from disturbed or problematic families. Cases where children came from healthy families had uniformly more positive outcomes.
Six studies found that when the mother was supportive and accepting, even negative sexual experiences diminished in their impact. Three studies showed sexually open families related to more positive outcomes, and eight found harmful effects on children when adults reacted negatively.
The studies presented little evidence for or against the belief that greater psychological damage results when the child knows the adult...
The author concludes that there is no set of reactions that is a single inevitable outcome of adult-child sexual interaction. More negative outcomes are associated with violence or coercion, tense situations, sex-negative attitudes, sexual ignorance, and unsupportive or judgmental adult reactions. The amount of anxiety and guilt that the child experiences depends on two main characteristics of the interaction. These factors are of overwhelming importance in immediate and long-term effects:
-- The first characteristic is the child’s perception of his participation as voluntary or involuntary. There are three important possibilities: he can be coerced into the activity, he can be unwilling but passive, or he can actively participate. Feelings of guilt appear low in cases of coercion, but not cases where the child is unwilling but passive.
-- The second factor of importance is the child’s knowledge of human sexuality and of society’s moral-negatives (taboos) regarding childhood sexual activity. There are four categories of awareness: ignorant of both sexuality and taboos, ignorant of sexuality but aware of taboos, sexually knowledgeable but unaware (or un-accepting) of taboos, and sexually knowledgeable and aware of taboos. Studies suggest that sexual ignorance increases fear and anxiety, as does the awareness of taboos...
Thus, the best case is the child who actively cooperates, who knows about sex, but who has not assimilated society’s moral negatives. The worst case is the child who is unwilling but passive, and who is aware of society’s taboos but is ignorant about sex... The author writes that it is important to note that the factors described here are the same as those that operate in adult-adult sexual interactions."
Finally, for a more personal account, consider the following letter regarding the Cohn-Bendit affair:
"We are the children of the sexual revolution. We have children today, or we hope to have some... Are we children of paedophiles? A number of us had parents who walked naked in front of them, and undoubtedly they let us touch their centres, their sex. They were happy when we fell in love at nursery school, when we kissed other children on the mouth... What it says is that our parents let us live... Children have a sexual life -- who is unaware of it still today? -- which tests desires, which has questions, seductions. In short, it was not that children were objects for adults, but that children are multi-dimensional... The Seventies made children -- us -- subjects. The sexual revolution -- including in the field of childhood -- initially taught us that our body belonged to us. That we had the right to do with them what we want... That... we had the right to say 'no' to those who wished to make another thing of our body and our desires... To think the sexual revolution -- which made of the child an actor, a subject of its body -- is the origin of paedophilia is a misinterpretation -- as much as to think that the female revolution... is the origin of rapes... The sexual revolution initially taught children, teenagers, women how to say 'no'. We thank the generation of the sexual revolution for having unbolted the old family where the child and the woman were -- and remain still too often -- objects, and were exposed to the sexual violence of those around them. Because the family that the revolution created is no longer that of the Fifties, we are happy to create some today, or we think of creating some tomorrow. Are the writings of Cohn-Bendit scandalous? No, they... made it possible to say 'I', to say 'no'. It is the opposite of paedophilia, of the law of silence. When today, more and more, one hears stories of horrors, abusive priests, violating parents, choking families... We worry about this company of paranoia that so quickly shouts about the sect, the paedophile, but which never gives itself the means -- in words, in people, in structures, in basic changes -- that would really make it possible to fight against these violences and their origins."
"[P]ositively evaluated early sexual experiences would be associated with greater erotophilia, more acceptance of various sexual behaviors for self and others, and greater sexual satisfaction" -- "Perceptions of Early Sexual Experiences and Adult Sexual Adjustment", 1996, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, volume 8(3), pp 37-59.
***
The most comprehensive paper I've found, based on a quick internet skim, was a summary of 30 studies (Constantine, LL, “The effects of early sexual experiences: A review and synthesis of research”, in Constantine, LL and Martinson, FM (edd), Children and sex: New findings, new perspectives, 1981, pp 217-44). It discusses, among other things, the controversial issue of adult-child contact.
An extract from the abstract:
"Studies suggest that sexual encounters are not intrinsically a problem for children, but rather for adults. Studies refute many of the fears of adults. The anthropological literature shows that sexual pursuits need not interfere with other pursuits in childhood. Furthermore, the vast majority of children with early homosexual experiences of any kind do not become homosexual as adults.
The article addresses the question of whether children ever initiate or willingly participate in sexual relationships with adults. Stories of the children and adults involved conflict, especially in criminal cases. However, research and clinical reports leave little doubt that some children do initiate the contacts and many participate willingly. Nine studies in the review confirmed this, although initiative on the part of the child was rare in father-daughter incest.
Various researchers have shown that the adult and the child in such interactions have different interests. The child wants affection and attention, not necessarily sex. Even when the child is interested in sexual activity, his interest is different from the adult’s.
Those children who actively participate in the sexual activity are more likely to engage in sex play in general, to experience pleasure in the contact with adults, to evaluate the experiences positively, and to be sexually active as young adults...
Most of these experiences did not involve physical force. Those that did resulted in negative reactions...
Fourteen studies reported that outcomes depended on the presence of force, coercion, or non-voluntary participation. The author writes, 'It appears from this analysis that a child’s perception of control, the ability to choose or reject participation in incest or sex with adults or siblings, is an essential ingredient in a healthy outcome from the experience, and this matter is as often decided by the ability to end an undesired relationship as it is by active entry into a desired one'.
An important question is whether a particular child of a certain age in a particular situation can realistically consent to sexual activity. Informed consent requires not only knowledge but also ability to resist successfully. Particularly important to consider are cases of passive acceptance, when the child seems to cooperate but is actually unwilling. Most studies lump these situations in with either willing or unwilling incidents.
The few that don’t conclude that these children may be the worst harmed. They feel confused, humiliated, guilty, and ashamed, yet helpless to end the sexual activity. This is most likely to occur when the age difference or role of the adult makes it more difficult for the child to decline.
Sixteen studies found that family environment had a large impact on the outcome of the sexual activity. Studies finding primarily negative outcomes included many children from disturbed or problematic families. Cases where children came from healthy families had uniformly more positive outcomes.
Six studies found that when the mother was supportive and accepting, even negative sexual experiences diminished in their impact. Three studies showed sexually open families related to more positive outcomes, and eight found harmful effects on children when adults reacted negatively.
The studies presented little evidence for or against the belief that greater psychological damage results when the child knows the adult...
The author concludes that there is no set of reactions that is a single inevitable outcome of adult-child sexual interaction. More negative outcomes are associated with violence or coercion, tense situations, sex-negative attitudes, sexual ignorance, and unsupportive or judgmental adult reactions. The amount of anxiety and guilt that the child experiences depends on two main characteristics of the interaction. These factors are of overwhelming importance in immediate and long-term effects:
-- The first characteristic is the child’s perception of his participation as voluntary or involuntary. There are three important possibilities: he can be coerced into the activity, he can be unwilling but passive, or he can actively participate. Feelings of guilt appear low in cases of coercion, but not cases where the child is unwilling but passive.
-- The second factor of importance is the child’s knowledge of human sexuality and of society’s moral-negatives (taboos) regarding childhood sexual activity. There are four categories of awareness: ignorant of both sexuality and taboos, ignorant of sexuality but aware of taboos, sexually knowledgeable but unaware (or un-accepting) of taboos, and sexually knowledgeable and aware of taboos. Studies suggest that sexual ignorance increases fear and anxiety, as does the awareness of taboos...
Thus, the best case is the child who actively cooperates, who knows about sex, but who has not assimilated society’s moral negatives. The worst case is the child who is unwilling but passive, and who is aware of society’s taboos but is ignorant about sex... The author writes that it is important to note that the factors described here are the same as those that operate in adult-adult sexual interactions."
***
Finally, for a more personal account, consider the following letter regarding the Cohn-Bendit affair:
"We are the children of the sexual revolution. We have children today, or we hope to have some... Are we children of paedophiles? A number of us had parents who walked naked in front of them, and undoubtedly they let us touch their centres, their sex. They were happy when we fell in love at nursery school, when we kissed other children on the mouth... What it says is that our parents let us live... Children have a sexual life -- who is unaware of it still today? -- which tests desires, which has questions, seductions. In short, it was not that children were objects for adults, but that children are multi-dimensional... The Seventies made children -- us -- subjects. The sexual revolution -- including in the field of childhood -- initially taught us that our body belonged to us. That we had the right to do with them what we want... That... we had the right to say 'no' to those who wished to make another thing of our body and our desires... To think the sexual revolution -- which made of the child an actor, a subject of its body -- is the origin of paedophilia is a misinterpretation -- as much as to think that the female revolution... is the origin of rapes... The sexual revolution initially taught children, teenagers, women how to say 'no'. We thank the generation of the sexual revolution for having unbolted the old family where the child and the woman were -- and remain still too often -- objects, and were exposed to the sexual violence of those around them. Because the family that the revolution created is no longer that of the Fifties, we are happy to create some today, or we think of creating some tomorrow. Are the writings of Cohn-Bendit scandalous? No, they... made it possible to say 'I', to say 'no'. It is the opposite of paedophilia, of the law of silence. When today, more and more, one hears stories of horrors, abusive priests, violating parents, choking families... We worry about this company of paranoia that so quickly shouts about the sect, the paedophile, but which never gives itself the means -- in words, in people, in structures, in basic changes -- that would really make it possible to fight against these violences and their origins."
| 154 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Justin
I agree with the studies to an extent. If coercion of any kind outside of the childs abilities to say stop, say no, or disagree will probably lead to a difficulty in later life. Primarily this is due to forming the ideas of sex as something of a tool for personal gratification than, for example, shared enjoyable intimacy.
But the problems arise when the 'learned behaviour' or motivational urges complicate a societal understanding of the influence and purpose of sex. Nevertheless it need not be wrong for children to engage in sex which will be carried over to later adulthood, yet the mechanisms put in place may introduce and reinforce a particular way of defining sex and the intricate reasons as to the various ways sex can be utilised. This may clash with other people's views or be adopted without any problems as the studies argues for.
Which brings me to a question; if adults (assumedly) are engaging with children on this level, can there be any other reason than their own personal gratification or will over another less defendable person to indulge in this? Surely they can fulfill these desires with someone other than a child and therefore the first few premises of why engaging with children can only really be attested as subversive.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I guess the short answer is Yes!
A longer one might try and rationalise the epoch in which said atrocity takes place... but as you say it comes back to consent... no matter which way you look at anything sexual - any age. But the constant fact that sex is thrown at us daily as part of our "modern" diet is eroding that away... more and more stories of rape appear and more and more people get off on it as their morals are eroded into "learning to accept their sexuality." Pah!
Doped with Religion, sex and TV...what else but sex is there...(?) ... as Justin says, anyone who needs to engage in sex with a child, cannot be considered anything but a sickness of mind, body and spirit...
Lilla...
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
Not quite same but similar. Let's paraphrase the question, shall we?
Are people harmed from rash driving? Well, it depends on the circumstances, it depends your particular predilication for accidents and the general happenstance of the scene of a possbile accident which we call luck.
Studies show while every 10 people in 1000 who drive rashly have an accident. Meaning, the other 990 don't. (Figures are made up)
And I am sure I can imagine a perfect example of a person who would feel that rash driving is no problem at all and stretch this further but i think I've made my point clear.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Three general points to make, incidentally, are: (1) that child-child sex is in issue as well as adult-child sex; (2) that an adult-child relationship needn't be a sexual one; and (3) that "sexual contact" in these contexts needn't be penetrative sex. See, for instance, the previous article on sexual development.
And what do we even mean by "child" or "adult" in these contexts? Are we simply using "under 16"/"over 16" as the definitions?
Justin -- dunno about objectivity; mostly in these entries, I've just been quoting/summarizing other people's ideas.
"if adults (assumedly) are engaging with children on this level, can there be any other reason than their own personal gratification or will over another less defendable person to indulge in this? Surely they can fulfill these desires with someone other than a child and therefore the first few premises of why engaging with children can only really be attested as subversive."
Okay, I take it you're asking something like, "In the case of a long-term and ongoing adult-child relationship, what do adults get out of the relationship other than domination over their partner?"
Well, I think the basic answer to this is: (a) most adult-child relationships are probably exploitative if there's extreme disparity in age; and (b) but for all relationships, including the exploitative ones, the adult probably gets out of it whatever anyone gets out of any relationship. You know -- I think it's like saying to someone, "Why did you marry your husband when there are plenty of other men out there?" -- It just happens that the husband fit whatever criteria the wife had, and the opportunity and pressure to enter the relationship arose.
I'm sure there's plenty of paedophiles out there who don't want to dominate their partner, but who are simply attracted to children, or to the particular child person.
And there's probably plenty of relationships between under-16s and over-16s where there's no disparity of power as such, or where the under-16 initiated the relationship.
Dear Lilla -- Just picking up on your last point, "anyone who needs to engage in sex with a child, cannot be considered anything but a sickness of mind, body and spirit..."
What if that person is another child?
Dear Nagster -- Annoying, nagging comment!...
That's probably the central argument for age of consent laws. I reckon most people, if you put it to them, would be willing to accept that under-16s can consent, can initiate contact with adults or other under-16s, that an adult-child or child-child relationship can be perfectly loving, etc. That these things are possible. But, yeah, they'd say the blanket rule is safer.
Well, there are various replies, none of which sweep the floor, depending on what other beliefs you hold. I've mentioned some of them in the next post -- sort of lesser of two evils stuff, or proposals for better models, or a belief that blanket rules are simply unfair. In most other areas of law, we look at the individual situation; we don't have the legal fiction of "You're statistically likely to have committed the crime, therefore you're guilty..."
A more direct reply is to ask whether your traffic example is parallel to age of consent. Does the age of consent in fact stop rash driving? Does driving safely burden people in a comparable way to age of consent? Etc.
Incidentally, I don't see what this discussion (a matter of psychological stat-citing) has to do with homosexuality (a linguistic question), but anyway...
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
…then I would say that is okay.
Many tribal cultures, like certain tribes in the Amazon, have rites of passage ceremonies and younger sexual barriers than our modern ones. Men usually take the rite of manhood passage at around fourteen in such tribes, soon after which they are eligible (if they survive) to mate... the girls must be about the same, although there is much tribal ritual and rites of passage ceremonies around menstruation too... so it evens out... and I suppose sets the physiological trend of an age of consent...at least.
"Illegal" dabbling by youngsters behind the hut is okay if they are the same age... no doubts about it... I doubt anyone would disagree with that...even your detractors...however, incestuous [and] adult/child sex will never be okay in my book, no matter the laws passed in any culture...there is something intrinsically repulsive about it, even amongst studies on apes - who will act with guilt if such taboos are violated...and meerkats [amongst many creatures] will exile such offenders from the group.
Actually, the taboos that exist in our society around the issue of an older age of consent, could well be considered more as financial and nothing more... interesting ...but then we regress back to the workhouses of early France in the 1400’s by lowering it... perhaps the IR reforms will get us there yet...but I wont go there...*lol*
Lilla...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Incidentally, general ethical comment: Peter Singer mentions that rules about reciprocation, kinship obligations, and sexual taboos (mainly incest) seem well-night universal factors (though varying in their formulation) among all primate societies. He supports the claim with some readings from primatologists in his Oxford "Ethics" reader.
It should be mentioned that a number of societies in the past have tolerated or even encouraged paedophilia, the most obvious being ancient Greeks. So it's quite possible that revulsion is cultural rather than genetic. When Plato and co gather together in the Symposium to talk about love, most of them mean paederastic love; and they are at pains to explain how each party profits from the relationship, the younger by education. There's even some Plato quote somewhere about how only barbarian nations avoid the practice of paederasty, because it is everywhere the enemy of tyranny.
Comment by Justin
What I meant was that by providing the information then paraphrasing it or broadening it out, you're not slanting towards a bias merely representing information. That's the part I admire, especially on a topic like this.
Exploitation happens everywhere and from your example expolitation can be seen in why anyone gets together with another - to utilise the others characteristics/qualities/etc for their own purpose to a certain extent. Perhaps a negative way at looking at relationships yet on some level it exists fundamentally, (otherwise there'd be no point in choosing partners and we'd all be asexual.) However, this nature would be further imposed upon someone within a relationship of a large age disparity or with someone arguably too young to understand the dynamics which Lilla describes, i.e. a youth/teenager/child romantically linked with someone markedly older and invariably wrong or non-right. This I think is the real crux of repulsion or aggrivation of Western contemporary societal custom - the assumption of subversion that is warranting entering this type of union.
This can also be applied to paedophilia or relationships of unequal ages and due to the exploitive nature I'm hard-pressed to see any other angle. I'm fairly sure one of the largest constitutive elements to paedophilia is from a heightened sense of control in the relationship or one of power. Similarly it's present within 16 year old relationships likewise. It's perhaps involuntary but always present and strengthened between the exploitative potenial there is to be had.
Comment by Joe Blogg
Joe Blogg's Blog
manchesterunited
collingwoodfootballclub
Is that fact or opinion?
Coz these days women are more open about it (a very good thing) as opposed to not that long ago.
Also you'd need to look at the figures per capita to get a real idea.
Honestly, I'd say nothing has changed (guess) & if anything the numbers would have decreased per capita (hope)
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
you have me at a disadvantage this morning, I haven't a clue what you are talking about "more & more" I cannot find that anywhere in my dialog... please clarify...
Lilla...
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Good Morning,
thank you for your response, which does nothing to alleviate my own growing philosophy - which I am writing about in my second book - about how the male biped even feels that he is superior in matters of philosophy... surely only a man has the reasoning mind needed to be 'fully' philosophical - especially in matters of sex?
Men like Plato will always find ways to philosophically justify their sexual behaviour and women and children will always try to find ways of saying no... but it comes down to et tu Brute, does it not... nothing philosophical about that... or a docile female or child for that matter, as long as it can be argued away somehow philosophically... why draw a line anywhere, lets just all climb back up the trees and go at it like apes...pah!
Lilla...
Comment by Joe Blogg
Joe Blogg's Blog
manchesterunited
collingwoodfootballclub
Comment by Justin
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
you are correct of course... PLato did much to 'soften' Aristotle's chauvinism... someone (maybe Adrian or SPain) will probably add him to the list of paedophiles before we're done... nothing seems sacred anymore, does it?
Joe Blogg,
that is my point all around orble I think, well said. TV has created a generation of voyuerism as its norm (excuse spelling)...
Lilla...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Justin -- I agree with your comments about there being a power dynamic to any relationship, and to anyone who enters a relationship doing it, to some extent, for selfish factors. Perhaps selfish reasons are usually the main reasons -- I don't want to date someone to "help" them...
As to whether domination of the partner is the main motive for paedophiles... Well, I suppose the plain fact is that I don't know. There is probably something of that. But I'd imagine there's also something to the idea that youth or children are presented as desirable objects.
To put it crudely, it might simply be that children turn pedophiles on, just like fetish objects turn fetishists on -- so it's not so much a matter of wanting power over your partner as desiring some quality you're partner's got.
JoeBlogg -- If you're asking about rape stats, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports (on p 95) that in 1993, there was a female sexual assault prevalence of 0.6% (presumably this is the perentage of the female population). In 2002, this was 0.4%, but presumably there is some degree of statistical error. Page 101 reports that 1997/8 4277 children were sexually abused; in 2002/3 there were 3493. Over those 6 years, though most of the figures gradually decreased, in 2001/02 there was an increase.
Dunno if I'm reading the tables right...
Now, this is only the results of one survey (there are others), but I my impression is that, over the last 10 years, the percentage of rape has remained about the same. The amount of child abuse seems to be gradually decreasing, but not uniformly.
Dear Lilla -- You write: "the male biped even feels that he is superior in matters of philosophy... surely only a man has the reasoning mind needed to be 'fully' philosophical - especially in matters of sex?"
Well, I'm skeptical there's a genetic prejudice against women. But it's true that, prior to the 20th century, there have been few celebrated women philosophers, just as there were few celebrated women writers, politicians, etc.
There are still fewer women than men in philosophy, but I don't think that the modern philosophical world is a boys' club (nothing like law firms, for instance).
Comment by The Voices in my Head
The Voices in my Head
You are a wonderful writer. You have a sense of humor and you do love to push people's buttons, don't you? You simply need to learn that you do have responsibilities to your readers that you have not taken into account. I suppose the first time you are slapped with a lawsuit, it might sink in a bit.
How about if I give you a first hand answer to that question, since you seem to need an answer to it?
I find this post, and the workings of your mind, somewhat sick to post this question and to research information on it. Why do you need to do that? As a man? Just curious.
To insinuate in any shape, way or form that sexual contact with a child is anything less than molestation, when a child has no ability to understand or agree to the far reaching implications of such an act, is again, irresponsible.
Do you want to be the cause of some sick, on the edge, not yet offending pedophile to take from your words that it is ok to touch a child in a sexual manner as long as the child CONSENTS??? What does that even mean? That a pedophile can give a child a sucker if they agree to suck him first and that makes it OK? Would that be consent in your mind?
You are either young or immature in the emotional sense. I can tell this by the utter disregard you have for the consequences of your questions. I know that you post a lot of this shit because It's provocative and it gets you votes. That's fine. I do love controversial topics and especially well-written ones. I could have been your biggest fan, you know.
Unfortunately, you do not care that someone like me may come along and see this post and become so angered by it that they want to vomit because it brings up memories better left alone. You don't care if you push someone with pedophiliac tendencies over the edge.
If you are going to continue to create posts such as this one, and the rediculous spanking post, you should quickly get a lawyer...or a disclaimer.
Voices~
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Glad you dropped by. Spent two or three days carefully reading and writing on this topic, and it was for you that I wrote it -- in response to the last comment you left (on atrocities).
"I know that you post a lot of this shit because It's provocative and it gets you votes. That's fine. I do love controversial topics and especially well-written ones. I could have been your biggest fan, you know."
Well, it's not about the votes. I don't write posts that report the news, that ask for reader feedback, that poll the audience, that raise blogging issues. I don't make a point of leaving an individual comment in response to every comment. The topics are meant to be interesting, sure, but you do me a disservice in alleging that I go to any unethical extremes to get votes. To me, the idea of financial motivation for writing on Orble is ridiculous; and the idea of writing for an audience suffocating.
"Unfortunately, you do not care that someone like me may come along and see this post and become so angered by it that they want to vomit because it brings up memories better left alone. You don't care if you push someone with pedophiliac tendencies over the edge."
Well, my kneejerk reply is that of course I care, but that it's important to discuss anything, everything. If I were the author of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, of course I'd regret having caused whatever riots, deaths, ensued, but I'd still think that nothing, even taboo things, should be immune to being discussed. And given that the age of consent is something that varies between states in America, between countries, between historical periods, why is it something that may not be discussed?
"CONSENTS??? What does that even mean? That a pedophile can give a child a sucker if they agree to suck him first and that makes it OK? Would that be consent in your mind?"
No, of course it wouldn't! Why would you suggest that it would be?
Comment by The Voices in my Head
The Voices in my Head
Do not try to outwrite a writer... do not turn my statements around and pretend they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It will not work with me. *smile*
I am not sure how else to clarify my statement on consent other than to say that it is abhorrent to me that anyone would indicate a child is capable of consenting to sexual contact at a young age with a family member or adult. They are not not capable of it. That is why there is an age of consent, because the potential for dire harm for early sexual involvement is too great to ignore.
I agree that all things can be discussed and I wasn't implying that some topics should be off limits. I was implicitly stating that if you choose to write about such topics, do it with some responsibility. For example, I question the reason or need to discuss certain issues, like this one, in an environment that is not controlled, in terms of who reads these arguments you have made.
What if a pedophile reads your words, -(they are your responsibility since you have chosen to post them,)- and makes a case for himself that as long as he can get the child to say yes, it's a go? I would appreciate a direct answer to this question.
You are raising issues which may feed a particular sickness in some individuals and this is concerning.
I would refer you to my post on pedophilia, one of the first posts back in early October on my self-titled blog. You will notice that it leaves absolutely no question in the mind of the pedophile as to what pedophilia is and what is acceptable. If any of those events ever came to be...I would gladly take responsibility for them without question. Can you say the same?
You made a compelling argument on your spanking post about putting a blanket rule into affect on that issue. I don't see that argument being made here. Why? Should it be or not, Adrian? This, again, is a very direct question and I would like a very direct response.
Voices~
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
"You made a compelling argument on your spanking post about putting a blanket rule into affect on that issue. I don't see that argument being made here. Why? Should it be or not, Adrian? This, again, is a very direct question and I would like a very direct response."
Well, I'm leaning towards abolishing age of consent at the moment, so in my opinion at the moment, a different form of blanket rule should be put in place (suggested in next paragraph). Here's a couple of points:
-- The current blanket rule simply stipulate that people below a certain age (from 10 to 21, depending on jurisdiction) cannot consent. Whereas people who propose abolishing age of consent may well suggest a different rule: for instance, that below a certain age there is a presumption of lack of consent, but that there's the opportunity to demonstrate consent after all.
-- In the case of spanking, I wouldn't believe in a blanking rule against it that gave no opportunity to demonstrate justifiability.
-- The discussion is not only about abolishing age of consent, but about lowering it, or including close-in-age exemptions. And it's about child-child relationships as well as adult-child relationships.
-- But it is true that blanket rule is probably the strongest argument for age of consent. Scroll up a bit; there's a response to Nagster about this.
-- What are the general rules for determining whether any blanket rule is unfair, whether, on a particular issue, there should or should not be one? Well, I haven't thought deeply enough into the topic. Factors would include, the amount and type of interests furthered and hindered by the blanket rule. So, for instance, you might well believe that people should never be screened out from flying planes because they fit a certain demographic (this would be an intolerable constraint on individual liberty). And you might believe that picking an arbitrary age on which to regulate someone's sexuality is also intolerably unfair.
"I am not sure how else to clarify my statement on consent other than to say that it is abhorrent to me that anyone would indicate a child is capable of consenting to sexual contact at a young age with a family member or adult. They are not not capable of it. That is why there is an age of consent, because the potential for dire harm for early sexual involvement is too great to ignore."
Firstly, how are you using the word "child"? Do you simply mean a person below whatever age the law prescribes? Say, a person below 16, or 14, or 12, or 10?
If you say that no 5-year-old is capable of consent, obviously almost no one would doubt you. This is what I had in mind when I wrote "Of course not!" in response to your question. But if you say that no 15-year-old is able to consent (which includes, among other things, making a free and considered choice based on reason and knowledge), many people might doubt you.
"I was implicitly stating that if you choose to write about such topics, do it with some responsibility. For example, I question the reason or need to discuss certain issues, like this one, in an environment that is not controlled, in terms of who reads these arguments you have made."
I'm actually against putting "how to make a bomb" material online. I believe the information is obviously dangerous, and that its danger outweighs any possible advantage. I'm okay with banning such a thing outright.
I'm also okay, at the moment, with laws against incitement to violence, on the basis that there is no clear line between speech and act. If you're obviously in a powder-keg situation, and your words are going to get someone lynched, for instance, then there may be a public interest in stopping you from making them.
I'm less okay with the various anti-racial vilification laws. If someone is going to make an anti-Semitic argument, I think it's better that they make it openly, and have their point of view discussed, than that the state drive such an argument underground, where it remains unchallenged.
Now, to me, the Mohammad cartoons and the words I've written in this series of five posts is comparable neither to terorrism nor to incitement. Among the differences are: it is not factual information that can pretty much only be used maliciously (like the bomb manual), and the cause-and-effect is not obvious (as in the incitement example). Sure, it could push people over the line into paedophilia, but how likely do you think this is -- and why do you think a free and open discussion couldn't also push them over the line into anti-paedophilia?
You suggest that this is not the appropriate forum for discussion. But to me the blogosphere is a subject of the political sphere, where all ideas should be advanced, tested, and challenged. If you find lowering-age-of-consent or abolishing-age-of-consent laws to be abhorrent, why drive them underground? Isn't it better that you openly refute them.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by The Voices in my Head
The Voices in my Head
Your comments do make me feel tons better about your intent with this post. I do agree with much of what you have stated in this comment.
By the way, yes, I was absolutely referring to a small child in my comment about the accepting candy=consent in the mind of a sick pervert.
I stand firm, my friend, that any adult who needs to get off by touching a child who is underage needs to die, obvious exceptions aside, (meaning, an 18 year old boy in a relationship with a 17 year old girl.) It is sick that someone could see a young child in sexual terms.
The Kinsey Report, done in the name of science, was a government funded -(I believe...can't remember for sure),- legalized study by pedophiles. Nothing could convince me otherwise. If you have not read it...delve deep. Read about the children who have grown up and remember all that was done to them.
Adults should have sex with adults, children with no one and teenagers with no one. I say that from the standpoint of someone who was pregnant at 18, very mature for my age and have done a hell of a job with my children. However, I was too young. I should not have had sex with anyone until I was much older. It sounds hopelessly old fashioned, -(and I certainly agree that it will never happen. I am speaking in terms of ideals here...) but considering the ramifications of potential for negative impact to occur from sexual activity, it's just too much risk for a teenager to be responsible for...teen pregnancies, disease, broken hearts...teenagers aren't responsible enough or mature enough to handle the consequences or to consider the potential for them, in the vast majority of cases. But then, I suppose most adults are too, aren't they? ( I am beginning to see how you think and argue..*smile)
Thank you for taking time to comment back, Adrian.
Voices~
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I'm not a parent, but when I heard about that poor 8-yr-old girl that was snatched in a mall in Perth, raped and then strangled, my initial response was to howl for his death. Long, painful death.
But, after calming down, I still don't support capital punishment.
As for sex with children, I am strongly against that.
However, I think I realize that my opinion is really a product of growing up in this society. After all, in much more primitive societies, men and women routinely marry at an age as young as 13. Maybe younger?
Certainly, men and women are physically able to act as adults. The problem seems to be that we (older adults) don't want them to be.
Can this change? I don't think so. I'll never support the idea of an older man having relations with a girl under 18. It's not entirely rational, but we need to keep the lunatics at bay...
Comment by anonymouse
Just because you think is "sick" doesn't mean it's wrong. People are different and are attracted to different things, you have no right to say that someone is better or worse for what they are attracted to.