I don't see that whose child it is makes a difference. People have sexually abused their own children before; in fact isn't it more likely that a child will be abused by a relative than by a stranger?
It makes a world of difference. I can only assume you have not had children of your own, nor have been in a family with many younger children.
From a very young age, children must be cared for. That means getting them naked and washing all their parts. In fact, some women will allow their child to suck on their breast. Often times, especially for bathing, it is easier if the parent does so with the child (as they will often get soaked anyway). In busy households sometimes children share baths, as well as change in front of each other, and sometimes have to help wash younger siblings.
If we are to believe your point above, then the rational conclusion would be to end parental or familial care of children, or view it as a natural source of violation and molestation. It is of course completely paranoid and evidence of where you misuse statistics to move from correlative to causative, and so draw erroneous conclusions.
In the real world families have to be at the very least relatively open regarding nudity around each other, the bigger the family the more open. This is especially true between parent and child (and frankly touching a naked child, which parents must do, is more of a concern than just being naked with a child).
That reality is why we don't arrest parents for bathing children or in any way getting naked with their children during bathing/changing clothes periods. Even conservatives tend to get that idea.
No, and I didn't say that it was. But it's close. It's too close for me to be comfortable with, and I'm a libertine to a considerable degree. The focus of my OP and associated posts was to point out that if even I, sexual libertine extraordinare, find Dobson's suggestion borderline creepy, it's staggeringly unexplainable that Dobson, class-A prude, wouldn't even flinch.
No, nudity is not close at all to sexual advances. That was the point that I made. It may be too close for you, but that is a statement about your feelings and nothing to do with the reality of people being naked together.
Given many statements you have made it is obvious you are not a libertine. Have you read any of the actual libertine literature (where the word comes from)? You may be horny and you might like sex, but you are pretty conventional social conservative, even if you accept gays and porn (which frankly is the societal convention for liberals right now). Indeed this whole event has shown how in some respects you are more conservative than someone you consider a class A prude.
And this is where it gets funny. He might not like homosexuality and he might not like nonmarital sex, but that does not necessarily make him a class A prude. He clearly is not as prudish as you regarding nudity, and who knows, maybe he is much wilder than you sexually inside of marriage, and maybe he even has rampant homosexual desires he is simply fighting due to religious conviction. That would make him repressed, but not necessarily a prude.
To be honest he looks and sounds like a prude to me, but obviously you are more prudish than I am so relatively you are a prude to me as well, and it is patently obvious on the subject of nudity, you are much more prudish than he is.
Your mistake seems to have been assuming that you are a libertine and he is a total prude, and so not understanding how he could have said what he said without flinching. Maybe it should have raised a flag regarding your libertinage and his prudery.
It's the position of all pertinent scientific authorities, such as the AMA, the American Psychiatric Association, and other organizations that children of a certain age cannot meaningfully consent to sexual activity, and thus any sexual interaction with such a minor by an adult represents sexual abuse.
It is the stated position of
some specific organizations (and it may be mainly US orgs) who have
publically agreed to
deny the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the sexuality of children because it
does not fit with current social and political standards.
I have a thread on the Rind study which outlines exactly how this all came about. It is a direct and equal analogy to the rejection of heliocentrism, as well as early medical damning of other sexual acts including homosexuality and masturbation.
On this the state of scientific
knowledge is clear. There is
no evidence that conventional social custom regarding sexuality and children are correct. In specific the recent liberal rationalization of inherent "nonconsensuality" is shot to hell, never to fly again. In contrast, it appears there is evidence of consensuality and so a way to measure actual harm, or potentiality of harm, in any act involving a child.
The American Psychological Association stood by this conclusion until a political firestorm occured, led by the exact same people you are criticizing at this very moment! Hell one of the leaders of the protest was a psychological org that converts gays. Would it surprise you to find yourself in league with Dobson against the APA?
If you wish to debate this issue, then you go to my thread on Rind and you read the evidence, and then you bring back counterevidence. I did not want to address this issue at all here as it is irrelevant, beyond your slippery slope. In any case, if you choose to hold on to your position regarding this issue ("it's over"), congratulations on crowning your hypocrisy by rejecting scientific knowledge in favor of social conventions... exactly what the conservatives (like Dobson) are doing.
Oh yeah, by the way the top scientific organization in the US reviewed the major study in question and declared that it was methodically sound and all critics were being detrimental to science. Is that pertinent? Hopefully enough to get you motivated to look at the evidence.
(AbE: I felt I should remind you about the history of condemned human behaviors. Not 40 years ago "all pertinent" organizations labelled homosexuality as a problem, as they labelled masturbation the same level of problem not 20 years before that. Even 20 years ago some major organizations (including the Surgeon General) tried to make the case that porn was harmful. Authoritative organizations are just as liable to error when they presume, or feel they must support social convention over scientific methodology to judge evidence.
If you can understand how "all pertinent" organizations were wrong about gays, masturbation, and porn, you should be able to see how they could be wrong about other sexual issues. This goes double when the history of the Rind study and why the AMA, and both APAs rejected a solid study is on record and they explicitly state their decision was that science should reflect social norms.)
I believe that the display of genitals to a child approaching puberty, is, at the very least, approching an abusive situation. It's a danger zone. It's something that would make me think twice about someone's fitness to care for a child.
He did not say to shove your cock in your son's face. All he said is to shower with the child so that he will see a mature penis, presumably which will then lead to discussion. Now I agree that that is unlikely to stop a kid from being gay, but that is another matter.
You are reading into his statement, something which is not there. And even still your casual commentary damns huge classes of people to being "unfit" as parents. Conservatives say the same thing about gays. Hmmmm, you now both have something in common: casual commentary making fallacious accusations and judgements regarding other people's fitness to raise children based on personal preference.
See where I might see hypocrisy? This is not mere ad hominem, nor namecalling. I am using a term with a clear definition and showing you how you fit that definition. If you don't like it, don't blame me nor criticize me for using the term.
Any explanation for that aside from his overall goofiness?
Yes, he is not as big a prude as you are regarding nudity, particularly within the family, where that is generally a natural part of having a family. Perhaps he was raised in a large family, particularly on a farm. My own question is why he feels this is okay given scriptural statements against this activity in specific. More hypocrisy on his part I'm sure.
This all raises questions in my mind. Are you planning on having kids? If so, are you planning on bathing them, allowing them to breast feed, or allowing them to feel comfortable about nudity (ie their body) by not constantly hiding your own body and telling them to hide theirs?
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-19-2005 05:45 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
