So you would legalize acts between a child and an adult, so long as the adult recognized when a child said \\\"no.\\\" Furthermore, people should stop being disgusted by adults who engage is sexual acts with children if the adult was able to confirm that the child enjoyed it.
You see no problem with putting all the power into the hands of the adult. It is up to the adult to know when they have gone too far. Any repercussion - legal or societal - will happen after the damage has been done. The responsibility for judging harm is with the person who has the most to gain.
I often struggle trying to make sense of your responses, and this is another occasion. You seem to make several consecutive connections from a given point without letting the rest of us in on it. From what I can tell Ivor is pointing out inconsistencies and questioning the premises. I have not seen him advocating anything, but I keep seeing accusations that he is.
Please give me one good reason why we should allow adults - who have greater life experience, are more mentally developed, have the benefit of an extreme imbalance of power, have different sexual needs than a child, and are easily able to manipulate a child\\\'s emotions - access to sex with children.
I keep hearing about this extreme imbalance of power, which I find interesting in light of the repeated complaints of out of control kids in schools where entire systems for discipline are in place. The way you and others write about this, it would seem easier to get a minor into bed than it would be to get him or her to write a book report. A father would apparently find it easier to have sex with his daughter than get her to stop talking so much in class. There are countless books on how to raise children to do the right thing, which would seem pretty easy if an
extreme imbalance of power existed.
Especially as the only people who will engage in sexual acts with children are those who are sexually aroused by children. For the pedophile, the child is not a human being, it is a sex object and harm is the secondary consideration.
Do you have evidence to support the claim that pedophiles always see the children as sex objects and not human? While you are at it, can you define what you mean by child? Do you include post-pubescent minors?
One of the tenets of your claim is that harm is presumed. Therefore, anyone who engages in the act is disregarding the harm. Therefore, they are treating the children as sex objects. What if the pedophile does not believe there is harm? Is he now treating the child as a human? Or will he simply be accused of rationalization and manipulation to justify his desires? What about the non-practicing pedophile?
It seems like a tautology to me.
Before you go into how sexual children are - please give me one valid example of a situation in which not being allowed to have sex with an adult will lead to long-term negative repercussions for a child.
The boyfriend of Mary Kay Letourneau? Loretta Lynn?
The fact that you would make this argument seems to indicate a weakness in your belief. It seems to me you are arguing
Well, even if I am wrong, there are no negative ramifications to the child for making it illegal, so there! That is hardly persuasive and indicates special pleading for sex. There is no long term harm to not allowing children to do countless things like play sports, ride bikes, wear make-up, and so forth.
Children already have healthy age-appropriate outlets for sexual exploration.
I find it interesting that others have argued that children cannot consent to sex because they do not understand what is involved while others such as yourself seem to think it is better if two inexperienced people do it.
An adult who places the child\\\'s need before there own will encourage these. An adult who places their own needs before the child\\\'s will exploit them.
This is only true if you already believe that adult-minor sex is bad.
Edited by Locknar:
Redacted material removed.
First, let us exclude all acts which would be considered rape if they occurred between adults. With that in mind it is only considered rape because we draw a bright line stating that minors cannot consent to sex with adults. If we did not have those laws, then there would be no rape.
I think Ivor is driving at something that reminds me of something I read a while back (
http://ordinaryevil.wordpress.com/2...hile-being-sexually-abused-including-orgasms/). This woman was molested by her father. When as an adult she admitted to herself that she sometimes enjoyed it and wanted it,
it was one of the most wretched moments of my life. I clutched my stomach and lay in a ball of emotional pain. I wanted to die. I wailed; but not because of the memory itself, but because I knew it was true. Most people don’t realize how serious the guilt can be for the victim.
So why such horrible guilt? She did nothing wrong. I believe the guilt is a manifestation of the visceral reaction of society to the notion. Her father, if convicted, would likely face life in prison - that is how horrible we consider it. And yet this poor woman has memories of enjoying and wanting the sex, which creates huge cognitive dissonance in regards to what society is telling her about how horrible the act is.
I think Ivor is on to something here. We can condemn it (I certainly condemn parent-child incest), but do we as a society need to treat it more harshly than if he verbally abused her for years or repeatedly spanked her and grounded her for wearing make-up? Maybe victims like her would not suffer as much if our reactions were more proportional to the harm that is unrelated to the guilt that our reactions instill.
Edited by Locknar:
Off-topic content removed.
) - I think Ivor is making some fine points, if only people would stop knee-jerking in response. He perhaps is playing devil's advocate to a degree, but I think it would be worthwhile exploring it.
) that you encountered, for instance? Like, did they try to manipulate you personally?
