akaMechsmith wrote:
Don't think that I ever supported pediophelia, but I don't support wild accusations either.
To deny harm is to support it. While you do not deny the existential harm you make impossible criteria for it and question the harm in cases where there is little reason to do so.
Put it this way. Say you know a woman who was raped. What's your first reaction? Do you say "hold on there, let's reserve judgement on the rapist. I do not KNOW if you were harmed. Were you?"
You gave the serial rapist all the benefit of the doubt and when it came to the victims you help up the impossibility of certainty.
Quote:Remark about 60 something male.
Whether it's ill or wierd doesn't much matter. The mating with a same sex child once past the age of sexual experimentation is abnormal. I don't think that a "normal" (no matter how we abuse the word) 60 year old male would be sexually stimulated by young male buttocks. Hell, it's difficult enough using the evolutionarily approved tools. :wink:
Dunno, to me "ill" is relevant to the issue of culpability.
Quote:Statuary, A child cannot give consent to a sexual act with an adult. Thats why we don't KNOW if they were harmed. Any sexual contact is deemed to be harmful legally in most places. But IF the boys thought it was ritualistic then no guilt would have been percieved by the boys and any harm would have been physical. No worse than a football game.
I disagree that being told that your rape is ritualistic will, as a matter of course, relegate all harm to the physical realm.
Quote:What would constitute harm to me, or what is my definition of harm.
IMO it would be any action causing (note "causing") any mental or physical damage. Torn anus, broken arm, or psychological damages such as scornful defamation, (belittling) scareing, amongst many others.
BUT this is the point where IMO we need a subjective standard. What's harmful in one context may not be considered harmful in another. (remember my football analogy
?)
I agree that harm is a subjective issue. But can you give me any example of "harmless" statutory rape of pre-pubescent children?
I can understand saying that the statutory rape of an 18-year old by a 19-year old might not be harmful. But do give an example with an 8-year old*. I do not evision this.
We were discussing a serial rapist whose victims were around 10 years old.
Quote:"Please make up your mind"--- I wish I could, it's a complex question (where to draw the line, that is) but IMO it's one that needs to be drawn. I am reasonably certain that somewhere between the Iranian Ayatollahs and the "man-boy love society" There exists a standard of behavior that all reasonably normal persons could agree with.
Ok, but you said the rape of the pre-pubescent boys (as young as 10 and 8) might have been harmless.
If you can't draw the line, can you at least give an example of a situation in which anally raping an 8-year old is "harmless and pleasurable sexual activity"?
Quote:"I am Wrong"--Perhaps but it looks from here (too far away) as though there was some trouble deciding whether she was raped or was ceremonially deflowered. If the judge was confused what hope for us
She was raped. But the conviction on mere statutory grounds had the complication of the "traditional" values.
The girl refused to speak to prosecutors. That's what really complicated the judge's job. Nevertheless the man is iincarcerated for that act.
We, however do not have the same limitations as the judge. Frankly I think our judgement is an easier task.
Quote:"It didn't" (happen in Western society) I would have expected it in an Abrahamic Society. I don't know much about the others.
Such things happen in any culture aka. I think you place too much value on culture in this equation and not enough on human nature and our base instincts.
Quote:"My disagreements center on two things----
No I was trying to stick to the case of the anally assaulted boys. The others I mentioned were merely peripheral, brought out in an attempt to illustrate the point of differing societal standards. Columns full of them.
Well the examples were, in fact, contradictory. For example, defending a priest who bathes nude with the boys but at teh same time faulting parents for allowing any priest access to their children are conflicting boundaries.
On the one hand when the boundaries as the parents see it has been crossed you minimize the situation.
On the other you fault parents for merely allowing their children to socialize with priests.
Quote:Not trying to minimize the "possible" harms. I am trying to point out how we (society) tend to make things worse due to accepting a fantastic view of sexuality and objectivity. IF it's a "bad thing" we make it worse and IF it's a "harmless" thing we make it bad.
You made more sense when you talked of the sensational nature of sex. Sure, the sensational nature of sex can cause more harm. I suspect you are trying to say something similar here so I won't nitpick.
Quote:Perhaps I have been incoherent, I had no intention of being inconsistent. And I did want to pull some chains.
(make people think about all the contributing factors involved in child abuse). Perhaps not limited to only sexual abuse.
Well, in the chain-jerking process I allege that you have contructed some indefensible arguments.
If you have been hyperbolic you should retract (as you did, somewhat, with teh football analogy).
I've long maintained that I agree with you on several points but there are also very clear points of difference.
For example, I am perfectly willing to cede that some legal definitions of rape are not harmful. Sometimes they are even common. The laws exist to deal with the cases in which a custodian's will is contrary to the act (and the custodian is tasked with preventing harm) and for the clearly harmful or compromising cases.
Now that's a horse of a different color.
What you did was argue that a serial rapist whose victims were prebubescent might simply ahve enganged in harmless and pleasurable acts with them.
So my oft repeated question is very relevant to determine if this is something you want to retract.
I do not ask of you to draw the line anymore. But to simply illustrate an example of a harmless statutory rape (anal) of an 8 year old boy by an old man.
By repeatedly giving the rapist the benefit of the doubt you frequently alluded to the possibility that some of the statutory rape was harmless.
So given all the lateral thinking you can muster,
please cite an example of how a series of pre-pubescent rapes can have harmless occurances.
No line needed, just an example of the possibility that you repeatedly touted.
.