Delete the paedophilia threads

[James R]

Are you sure there cannot be just one general rule: a check for harm?

I have clearly made the case in our debate that pedophilic sexual abuse of children results in significant and potentially long-lasting harms to the child victims.

You failed refute my arguments, or establish your claim that it does not. In fact, you chickened out of the debate.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm thinking a little more cosmically ....

Wow, I've heard some doozies. Some white men have claimed the cause of our first world circumstance was the fact we weren't black. It seems Tiassa implies we are first world because we don't bang our children. Actually, Jared Diamond has hit the nail on the head why white men ended up with the Guns, the Best Germs, and Steel. [1] I don't remember any child banging comments being part of the intellectual package he describes. Perhaps I should reread...

I was thinking a little more toward Hawking.

 

[scott3x]

tDepends on what I guess I can call 'the 3 factors':
1- Most importantly, the consent of both parties. ancientregime has made some good points concerning consent, but I think that this is still a good general answer.
2- The law.
3- other societal factors.

Are you sure there cannot be just one general rule: a check for harm?

You're quite right. I guess it should be 'the 4 factors' then:
1- check to see whether the parties involved liked or disliked the interaction
2- check for consent from both sides
3- the law
4- other societal factors

If they are old enough to say the words, "I like that, let's do that." Then so be it.

In a future society that would allow such things, I think that could frequently work well.. ofcourse there are such possibilities as stds and pregnancy to think about.

If no harm comes from it, it doesn't fit the criteria for a crime.

Unfortunately, in this society, that's not the case. However, I agree with you that as a general rule, it should be (minors must still be informed that sex can lead to stds and pregnancy; otherwise, a pleasant activity may have unpleasant consequences).

If they are not old enough to say anything, i.e., child under a year, then the act itself would be judged for harm or not. No matter what it is, if it doesn't cause harm, it doesn't fit the criteria for a crime.

A test for harm I think is the best general approach.

I agree, with the above caveats that I mentioned. The most important issue, however, is that the younger one of the parties is, the more potential for abuse from the older party; for this reason, I believe that the older party should be licensed to engage in sexual activities with younger parties. As a general rule, I think it's safe to say that the people who are least likely to harm children are the people who raised them and teachers. Parents and teachers already work together. Parents and teachers already teach their children about sexuality, to varying degrees. In my view, in the future, it could simply get to be a more hands on approach, as some parents and teachers have done, at times with positive results, despite all the negative reinforcements for such things in our society.

 

[scott3x]

Ok, but um.. you don't suppose you could provide that excerpt anyway? Or atleast the post number and whether it's in the top section or the bottom ? I'm not made out of time you know; between your posts, those of ancientregime and Tiassa's posts, not to mention others, can literally eat my day away...

He is discussing myths.

Be that as it may, he believes those myths and probably thinks that what we are talking about are myths .

3. Pedophilia is as "normal" as homosexuality. The only difference is that it is not yet accepted by society.

Unlike homosexuality, pedophilia does not involve informed and equal partners capable of mutual informed consent. Pedophiles take advantage of the trust of children, or else force them to engage in acts they do not wish to engage in. Pedophilic child abuse is comparable to rape, being sexual activity in the absence of informed consent.

I think it was in regard to your comment here...

Perhaps that's what James was referring to. He muddles things up. I believe that neither you or I have ever advocated that someone who is forced to engage in a sexual act shouldn't be considered a criminal act. The term 'child abuse', in my view, implies this type of thing, and yet frequently includes sexual interactions that do not involve force of any kind. People must begin to differentiate between forced and non forced sexual interactions, as well as sexual interactions that people like vs. sexual interactions that people don't like.

 

[scott3x]

Ok, but um.. you don't suppose you could provide that excerpt anyway?

Start with post #8.

I did. Right away you start using un-neutral terminology, messing things up. Sexual abuse is generally thought of as something that a person does -not- want. And yet many children have positive sexual interactions, both with other children and adults. You should have used a neutral term such as 'sexual interaction'. Anyway, ancientregime has quoted one of your points, perhaps that is the one you were referring to in the past.

You ought to be able to fit in into your busy schedule of 9/11 conspiracy readings.

My work on the 9/11 threads has almost come to a standstill due to all the work I've put into these paedo threads.

However, I think we should focus on the teen years as I doubt we'll come to any sort of agreement in terms of the years before that...

You can't agree that sex between an adult and a 4 year old is always a bad thing for the 4 year old? [/QUOTE]

If it's an adult male having penetrative sex with a 4 year old female, I may indeed be able to say that it's always bad; I've heard of an online woman state that she first had sexual intercourse with an adult when she was fairly young, by him going in -very- gently, but I think she was around twice that age, 8 or so. The islamic prophet Mohammed first had sex with one of his wives when she was 9 and they say that their relationship was close. I personally don't think that our society will allow any such thing in the forseeable future, however. Unless you're in an islamic country, where I believe you can indeed have sex with a girl who's 9 if she's married to you and the girl doesn't go to court to protest the marriage, the youngest age of consent between adults and minors is 13 (such as in Spain). For this reason, I think that we really should focus on the teen years, as that's more in keeping with what western societies will accept at present...

 

[scott3x]

Are you sure there cannot be just one general rule: a check for harm?

I have clearly made the case in our debate that pedophilic sexual abuse of children results in significant and potentially long-lasting harms to the child victims.

Again, your terminology isn't neutral. 'sexual abuse', 'victim'. Unless you switch to neutral terminology and prove that there is always sexual abuse in adult/minor relationships and that the minor is always a victim, you have done nothing more than state your opinion. From what I've seen from your debate posts, as well as here, you don't do this.

You failed refute my arguments, or establish your claim that it does not. In fact, you chickened out of the debate.

I think it's more that he simply felt as I do; you refuse to play fair, using un-neutral terms right from the get go.

 

[scott3x]

Wow, I've heard some doozies. Some white men have claimed the cause of our first world circumstance was the fact we weren't black. It seems Tiassa implies we are first world because we don't bang our children. Actually, Jared Diamond has hit the nail on the head why white men ended up with the Guns, the Best Germs, and Steel. [1] I don't remember any child banging comments being part of the intellectual package he describes. Perhaps I should reread...

I was thinking a little more toward Hawking.

Hawking who? In any case, I think it's clear that it's definitely debateable as to why cultures that were more liberal in regards to youth sexuality have faded; perhaps the sexually repressive societies that colonized much of the world may have had something to do with it?

 

[James R]

The term 'child abuse', in my view, implies this type of thing, and yet frequently includes sexual interactions that do not involve force of any kind. People must begin to differentiate between forced and non forced sexual interactions, as well as sexual interactions that people like vs. sexual interactions that people don't like.

"Hey, little Johnny! Do you want to play a secret game with me? Let's wait until your parents are out of the house and we can be alone. ... Now, remember, Johnny, this is our secret game. It will be lots of fun for both of us, I promise.

Now, I'll just unzip my pants. Look, Johnny! There's my penis. Isn't it a funny shape? Would you like to touch it? Here, let me put your hand on it. Isn't this a fun game? ..."

Is the the kind of thing you have in mind, scott3x?

Does this story excite you?

Sexual abuse is generally thought of as something that a person does -not- want.

Duh.

And yet many children have positive sexual interactions, both with other children and adults.

Buh-bah! Fail.

If it's an adult male having penetrative sex with a 4 year old female, I may indeed be able to say that it's always bad...

You may be able to, but you're not sure?

Again, your terminology isn't neutral. 'sexual abuse', 'victim'.

That's because pedophilic abuse of child victims is sexual abuse.

The reasons why it is always abusive I have given in the Formal Debate thread "Is pedophilia pseudoscience?"

Unless you switch to neutral terminology and prove that there is always sexual abuse in adult/minor relationships and that the minor is always a victim, you have done nothing more than state your opinion. From what I've seen from your debate posts, as well as here, you don't do this.

I provided at least 20 links proving this. Did you read any of them?

 

[S.A.M.]

I think it depends on what the existing social paradigm is for morality and rights. At one time, it was perfectly natural for men to engage in pederasty and the Greeks would have refuted any claim that they were all pedophiles.

Modern society has a different paradigm and sex between a child and an adult is not considered moral.

Maybe at some point they will revisit this, as they did homosexuality. But its not going to be in the near future.

 

[scott3x]

The term 'child abuse', in my view, implies this type of thing, and yet frequently includes sexual interactions that do not involve force of any kind. People must begin to differentiate between forced and non forced sexual interactions, as well as sexual interactions that people like vs. sexual interactions that people don't like.

"Hey, little Johnny! Do you want to play a secret game with me? Let's wait until your parents are out of the house and we can be alone. ... Now, remember, Johnny, this is our secret game. It will be lots of fun for both of us, I promise.

Now, I'll just unzip my pants. Look, Johnny! There's my penis. Isn't it a funny shape? Would you like to touch it? Here, let me put your hand on it. Isn't this a fun game? ..."

Is the the kind of thing you have in mind, scott3x?

Does this story excite you?

No and no. I have -never- been an advocate of secret games of this nature, although I know that they do happen for various reasons. They happen between children and they happen between adults and children. The most important thing is not whether the game is secret but whether the minor -enjoys- it; and not only in the moment that it happens but as a life event.

Sexual abuse is generally thought of as something that a person does -not- want.

Duh.

Neither me nor ancientregime have ever advocated for unwanted sexual interactions.

And yet many children have positive sexual interactions, both with other children and adults.

Buh-bah! Fail.

Failed what?

If it's an adult male having penetrative sex with a 4 year old female, I may indeed be able to say that it's always bad...

You may be able to, but you're not sure?

Sizes of genitalia and degrees of penetration matter here. Is the man's exceptionally small, is the 4 year old's exceptionally large, how far in does the penetration go. These are only the physical considerations, ofcourse.

Again, your terminology isn't neutral. 'sexual abuse', 'victim'.

That's because pedophilic abuse of child victims is sexual abuse.

Again with the non neutral terminology. I begin to wonder if we'll ever get very far in this discussion. Abuse, as I have stated previously, denotes unwanted sexual interactions. Again, no one here as far as I know is advocating for this. Therefore, to insist that that's what me and ancientregime are advocating is patently wrong.

The reasons why it is always abusive I have given in the Formal Debate thread "Is pedophilia pseudoscience?"

I think you've already summarized why you think so in this post I'm responding to and I've found your reasoning wanting.

Unless you switch to neutral terminology and prove that there is always sexual abuse in adult/minor relationships and that the minor is always a victim, you have done nothing more than state your opinion. From what I've seen from your debate posts, as well as here, you don't do this.

I provided at least 20 links proving this. Did you read any of them?

I've read parts of them, yes. Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, in its third chapter, details how studies can and frequently are biased in such a way that they literally refuse to take input that doesn't suit the viewpoint(s) of the researchers. You can currently get a used copy of the book from amazon.com for less then 5 bucks (there's only 5 copies though, and the most expensive is close to what it originally sold for, 80$ or so).

There are, ofcourse, more widely known studies that have stated that adult/minor relations frequently don't create long term harmful effects on children, such as the Rind Report. Repression of such studies is clear; The Rind Report, initially set to be published in Sexuality and Culture, was finally rejected. In the end, they were published by the APA but when faced with criticism it refused to defend publishing it.

 

[scott3x]

I think it depends on what the existing social paradigm is for morality and rights. At one time, it was perfectly natural for men to engage in pederasty and the Greeks would have refuted any claim that they were all pedophiles.

Yep.

Modern society has a different paradigm and sex between a child and an adult is not considered moral.

As a general rule, that is indeed true. Things get somewhat more complicated when we get into the 'child' teens. That is, teens who are under the age of consent. In some countries, such as Spain, this is not an issue as the age of consent is 13.

Maybe at some point they will revisit this, as they did homosexuality. But its not going to be in the near future.

Again, I think you're right. The main struggle for the forseeable future will be in the teen department.

 

[James R]

SAM:

I already addressed that argument in my Formal Debate with ancientregime.

 

[James R]

scott3x:

No and no. I have -never- been an advocate of secret games of this nature, although I know that they do happen for various reasons. They happen between children and they happen between adults and children. The most important thing is not whether the game is secret but whether the minor -enjoys- it; and not only in the moment that it happens but as a life event.

So, you don't advocate these games, but if they happen you have no particular problem with them, as long as the minor enjoys them.

Right.

How many minors do you think enjoy sexual abuse by adults?

Neither me nor ancientregime have ever advocated for unwanted sexual interactions.

You've both done nothing but advocate for unwanted sexual interactions. The only person who wants pedophilic sexual abuse is the pedophile. The child does not initiate pedophilic abuse.

Sizes of genitalia and degrees of penetration matter here. Is the man's exceptionally small, is the 4 year old's exceptionally large, how far in does the penetration go. These are only the physical considerations, ofcourse.

Like ancientregime, I think you're so fixated on the physical and on children as sexual objects that I doubt you have the capacity to see children are people at all.

I assume you don't have any children of your own. I hope you do not.

Again with the non neutral terminology. I begin to wonder if we'll ever get very far in this discussion. Abuse, as I have stated previously, denotes unwanted sexual interactions.

... which all pedophilic actions are. None involve informed consent of the child, for the simple reason that a minor cannot give informed consent.

 

[scott3x]

No and no. I have -never- been an advocate of secret games of this nature, although I know that they do happen for various reasons. They happen between children and they happen between adults and children. The most important thing is not whether the game is secret but whether the minor -enjoys- it; and not only in the moment that it happens but as a life event.

So, you don't advocate these games, but if they happen you have no particular problem with them, as long as the minor enjoys them.

As long as the minor enjoys them as a -life- event, not just in the moment.

How many minors do you think enjoy sexual abuse by adults?

By my definition, none.

Neither me nor ancientregime have ever advocated for unwanted sexual interactions.

You've both done nothing but advocate for unwanted sexual interactions.

I disagree, but feel free to point out where you think we have. Misunderstandings on such emotionally charged issues can certainly occur.

The only person who wants pedophilic sexual abuse is the pedophile. The child does not initiate pedophilic abuse.

I have no idea how you define 'pedophilic sexual abuse' or 'pedophilic abuse'. As to sexual interactions, I believe that some minors/children (the legal definition is the same) like some of them and don't like others. From my personal experience in my own youth as well as testimonials I have heard both offline and on, I would argue that the main factor which determines if it's a positive or a negative sexual experience hinges on whether it was a consensual, non coerced interaction or not.

Sizes of genitalia and degrees of penetration matter here. Is the man's exceptionally small, is the 4 year old's exceptionally large, how far in does the penetration go. These are only the physical considerations, ofcourse.

Like ancientregime, I think you're so fixated on the physical

No, I'm not. The very fact that I mentioned 'these are only the physical considerations' suggests that I think of other aspects as well.

and on children as sexual objects that I doubt you have the capacity to see children are people at all.

I couldn't disagree with you more. While many people prefer children to be seen not heard, I have always loved the transparency, humour and openness to various ways of seeing things of children.

I assume you don't have any children of your own. I hope you do not.

No, I don't yet have any children of my own. I find your judgement that it wouldn't be good to be unfair, but I understand that this issue is one that frequently gets people to jump to conclusions.

Again with the non neutral terminology. I begin to wonder if we'll ever get very far in this discussion. Abuse, as I have stated previously, denotes unwanted sexual interactions.

... which all pedophilic actions are.

Since I don't know how you're defining pedophilic, I can't really respond to this.

None involve informed consent of the child, for the simple reason that a minor cannot give informed consent.

They certainly can't legally give informed consent, which is why it's generally not a good idea for a minor to engage in illegal sex, if they value the freedom of their partner and in some cases, of themselves. This discussion is focusing on whether atleast some of them can give informed consent regardless of what's in the lawbooks in their particular jurisdiction. On that point, there is growing controversy and I believe I know how it'll work itself out.

 

[scott3x]

SAM:

I already addressed that argument in my Formal Debate with ancientregime.

Assuming that you have indeed done this, why not excerpt the relevant portion or atleast link to the post where you have done so?

 

[James R]

As long as the minor enjoys them as a -life- event, not just in the moment.

All the evidence I presented in the Formal Debate says that minors do not enjoy sexual abuse as a life event.

I have no idea how you define 'pedophilic sexual abuse' or 'pedophilic abuse'.

Then read the Formal Debate thread, where I defined terms in my opening post.

From my personal experience in my own youth as well as testimonials I have heard both offline and on, I would argue that the main factor which determines if it's a positive or a negative sexual experience hinges on whether it was a consensual, non coerced interaction or not.

All pedophilic actions are coerced. Children don't know about sex, so they don't want sex. They don't initiate it. They don't ask for it. They don't want sex with adults. Get it?

While many people prefer children to be seen not heard, I have always loved the transparency, humour and openness to various ways of seeing things of children.

Pedophiles, by the way, commonly report that they love the innocence of children, their openness to experimentation, their trust, their transparency etc. etc. Why? Because these things make them easy to victimise.

This discussion is focusing on whether atleast some of them can give informed consent regardless of what's in the lawbooks in their particular jurisdiction.

No. This discussion is focussed on whether sexual abuse of children by pedophiles causes harm to the children, in the short and long term.

Assuming that you have indeed done this, why not excerpt the relevant portion or atleast link to the post where you have done so?

RTFD. This is the third time you've asked me to repeat myself for your benefit. Get off your lazy arse and do your own reading. It only requires going to the Formal Debates forum, clicking on a thread title and reading the bloody thing.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM:

I already addressed that argument in my Formal Debate with ancientregime.

I did not see that point addressed. I'm simply going by the evidence from other mammals such as bonobos, that sex is also used as social bonding. We've changed our ideas of sex [marriage, consent, procreation, childhood] quite dramatically in the last century and it would be naive to overlook the fact that perceptions are greatly affected by moral attitudes. Children are sensitive to such perceptions just as adults are and secrecy, guilt, coercion can be a source of trauma, especially if there is a sense of wrongdoing.

You can see that in the simple difference in attitudes that children have towards sex in different societies.

 

[James R]

One of the articles I linked in the debate discussed that very issue, SAM. The conclusion of the (academic, expert) authors is that societal perceptions causing trauma following child abuse is at best a second-order effect that can add to the primary trauma of the abuse itself.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'd like to see how they assessed this.

Do we assume then that all bonobo children suffer from trauma?

 

[James R]

Do we assume then that all bonobo children suffer from trauma?

How old are bonobos before they engage in sexual activity with adults?

(At what age is a bonobo considered an "adult", anyway?)