• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sexually abusing a child while Female

Cain said:
So, one reading comprehension failure after another.
Click to expand...

Yes, on your end. I thought maybe I had not been clear, had not chosen my words carefully, not used the proper qualifiers, but looking back I have. I'll try to be even more clear.

You must have the memory of a proverbial goldfish. You asked, "Even if the person was otherwise willing, how can we tell the consent was meaningful? Informed? Valid? Back to the robbery example, when there is gun pointed at you, even if you really were willing to give your wallet without it, how would anyone else be able to know?"
Click to expand...

And right before that I said, "Next, let us move on to how we, as a society/nation/group/whatever, are to establish that meaningful consent was given?" Highlighting added.

Even in the part you quoted, 'how would anyone else' know should give you the qualifiers and context. More on this below.

When I provided examples, you were reduced to semantics, claiming a relevant difference between "willing" and "wanting."
Click to expand...

Reduced? That's an important distinction, but even without it your 'examples' simply are not addressing what I actually said.

Here's the recent bit:


OK, so let's take this most recent ad hoc nonsense and change "Wanting it" to some version of "willingness" because willingness is supposedly what matters. The same argument about "the impulsiveness inherent in children" applies, which indicates the willing-wanting never meant anything at all. Then you have the gall to whine about not dealing with what you're "actually" saying.

Muddled thinking, muddled writing:
Click to expand...

Is it your concretion that this is not one (but not the only as I shouldn't need to say but you'll misstate if I'm not explicit) factor in why children should have greater protections in that regard? I see it as important, but if you don't, make your argument. Calling it 'ad hoc nonsense' doesn't change a thing.

But yes, that is why the distinction between the two is important. I'm having trouble following why you assert it is not.

Then, in the same post:



This could be mildly amusing if you didn't take yourself so seriously. Let me know when you figure out what you want to say.
Click to expand...


You are still sticking to the script in your head rather than my argument as I've presented it. That you've repeatedly answered 'how does society establish meaningful consent from children in any specific case' with 'well some kids like sex in the abstract' shows you're not understanding the distinction.

When I ask how we could rule out coercion, that is not, NOT, me saying that there must have been coercion in every case. It is asking what method we would use to establish that. You're 'righteously' assuming my questions are unnuanced and disingenuous instead of taking them as they are.
 
angrysoba said:
I wonder if #Metoo has made Miss Atkinson sweat a little bit more.
Click to expand...

Sweet, sweet Rita has nothing to fear.

tyr_13 said:
Yes, on your end. I thought maybe I had not been clear, had not chosen my words carefully, not used the proper qualifiers, but looking back I have. I'll try to be even more clear.

And right before that I said, "Next, let us move on to how we, as a society/nation/group/whatever, are to establish that meaningful consent was given?" Highlighting added.

Even in the part you quoted, 'how would anyone else' know should give you the qualifiers and context. More on this below.

Reduced? That's an important distinction, but even without it your 'examples' simply are not addressing what I actually said.

Is it your concretion that this is not one (but not the only as I shouldn't need to say but you'll misstate if I'm not explicit) factor in why children should have greater protections in that regard? I see it as important, but if you don't, make your argument. Calling it 'ad hoc nonsense' doesn't change a thing.

But yes, that is why the distinction between the two is important. I'm having trouble following why you assert it is not.

You are still sticking to the script in your head rather than my argument as I've presented it. That you've repeatedly answered 'how does society establish meaningful consent from children in any specific case' with 'well some kids like sex in the abstract' shows you're not understanding the distinction.

When I ask how we could rule out coercion, that is not, NOT, me saying that there must have been coercion in every case. It is asking what method we would use to establish that. You're 'righteously' assuming my questions are unnuanced and disingenuous instead of taking them as they are.
Click to expand...

My offer still stands. And I suggest you read my original reply (for the first time) as it is a relative model of economy and clarity. My conclusions are largely in line with your own, but I spare others three shell games of "guess the argument," embarrassing attempts to score feeble points ("false dichotomy"!), and the self-righteous exasperation of having to take the time to thunder against child rape.

As tempting as it might be to secure a cheap but self-satisfying point on distinguishing between "wanting" and "willing," the appropriate course of action is to concede it all as irrelevant. Which is what I did. In some particular case, I can grant that a fourteen year old wants to have sex, is willing to have sex, and is personally mature enough to meaningfully consent without the threat of coercion. I can concede all of these things because they don't matter: the relationship should still be illegal.

Similarly, I'm not going to argue over what precisely constitutes torture, or whether it worked in some particular instance if that has no bearing on my conclusion. I'm certainly not going to fuss over such details and then bitch that the other person "doesn't understand where I'm actually coming from because he's locked in his own headspace, man."
 
Cain said:
Sweet, sweet Rita has nothing to fear.



My offer still stands. And I suggest you read my original reply (for the first time) as it is a relative model of economy and clarity. My conclusions are largely in line with your own, but I spare others three shell games of "guess the argument," embarrassing attempts to score feeble points ("false dichotomy"!), and the self-righteous exasperation of having to take the time to thunder against child rape.

As tempting as it might be to secure a cheap but self-satisfying point on distinguishing between "wanting" and "willing," the appropriate course of action is to concede it all as irrelevant. Which is what I did. In some particular case, I can grant that a fourteen year old wants to have sex, is willing to have sex, and is personally mature enough to meaningfully consent without the threat of coercion. I can concede all of these things because they don't matter: the relationship should still be illegal.

Similarly, I'm not going to argue over what precisely constitutes torture, or whether it worked in some particular instance if that has no bearing on my conclusion. I'm certainly not going to fuss over such details and then bitch that the other person "doesn't understand where I'm actually coming from because he's locked in his own headspace, man."
Click to expand...

Your 'economic' posting has still yet to substantively address the point you purport it does.

All your criticism of the form of my posts is meaningless. Hell, it's basically snobby tone-policing. 'Don't show emotion while talking about child rape while tired'. Get over it.

If you want to, you can try to answer my question, address my point. Anytime. The 'tut-tut' act doesn't show you understand nor advance the discussion. You do assert your abilities with clarity. You don't even have to disagree if you don't. That's entirely possible.
 
Thermal said:
I mean from her viewpoint. What would be the attraction to a child? Physically, they would seem to (ahem) have the pick of the litter, but they go for a kid. Just baffling, in a way.
Click to expand...

Look up Japanese hentai manga.

There's no shortage of female artists who have drawn (and continue to draw) pornographic images depicting young boys and teenage youths with most of the audience being older and younger women. The subject matter is typically gay sex and often includes elements of rape and sexual exploitation.
 
p0lka said:
I don't get the 'prison rape' thing, I'm not from america, but when I was 14 or 15 I would have loved for her to be my teacher.

But i'm not 14 or 15 anymore.
Click to expand...

You seem to have changed your tune.

Your fantasies about children being sexually abused have been duly noted.
 
p0lka said:
I don't get the 'prison rape' thing, I'm not from america, but when I was 14 or 15 I would have loved for her to be my teacher.

But i'm not 14 or 15 anymore.
Click to expand...

Imagine the thought of 14 or 15 year old boys dictating what school should be like. It would be pretty sweet completely pointless self-gratification.
 
bluesjnr said:
You seem to have changed your tune.

Your fantasies about children being sexually abused have been duly noted.
Click to expand...

Finding the thought of an adolescent youth or young underage man having sex with their teacher arousing isn't something that's uncommon or deviant, so holding that against someone just comes off as incredibly petty and bigoted.

With that said it's important to point out that fantasies are often unrealistic and such relationships, even if they would be legal had there not been a teacher-student relationship, are problematic enough that prohibiting them is more than reasonable, even if one can seriously question whether or not it's reasonable that people spend multiple years in prison for what amounts to a merely inappropriate but not abusive relationship.
 
Arcade22 said:
Finding the thought of an adolescent youth or young underage man having sex with their teacher arousing isn't something that's uncommon or deviant, so holding that against someone just comes off as incredibly petty and bigoted.

With that said it's important to point out that fantasies are often unrealistic and such relationships, even if they would be legal had there not been a teacher-student relationship, are problematic enough that prohibiting them is more than reasonable, even if one can seriously question whether or not it's reasonable that people spend multiple years in prison for what amounts to a merely inappropriate but not abusive relationship.
Click to expand...

Is funny how when pedophilia is arousing to you it seems fine. Yet I can guarentee if I brought your 14 year old son home I'd be lucky to leave with my life.

Thankfully unlike yourself I do not find pedophilIa not "uncommon or deviant." If the people you know commonly think pedophilia is arousing, please post your names and addresses so I can send gifts for your forward thinking fine selves.
 
sadhatter said:
Is funny how when pedophilia is arousing to you it seems fine. Yet I can guarentee if I brought your 14 year old son home I'd be lucky to leave with my life.

Thankfully unlike yourself I do not find pedophilIa not "uncommon or deviant." If the people you know commonly think pedophilia is arousing, please post your names and addresses so I can send gifts for your forward thinking fine selves.
Click to expand...

I just love it when SJWs have to make up lies to vilify the people they disagree with. It isn't like we don't know your argument is absurdly weak that you have had to redefine "pedophile" to keep the outrage rolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom