Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should this guy have served time?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 112 (280534)
01-21-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
01-21-2006 10:40 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
I guess I don't understand. By definition, rape is unconsensual sex.
I said the justness of the sentence does not necessarily hinge on consent to determine whether "rape" occured. I'm not sure how much more clear it can be.
For example if the man was found in the act of beating the young girl who had massive genital damage and left in a near catatonic state, then I could say with more certainty that the sentence was rather unjust. If however this was something where what is being discussed is possible light genital fondling during a shower or while sitting on the guy's knee, then I could say that the sentence seemed more just... all of this regardless of whether she gave consent or not.
You seemed to be lining up for an assertion that, as long as he didn't commit physical assault as well, we can safely conclude that the sex was consensual.
Yes, that is not what I was trying to suggest.
I think you've missed the point, again. The point is not that a well-trained interviewer can control a child's thoughts; only that they have to be very careful to avoid leading the child to the conclusion that they want to hear.
Actually I understood you perfectly, though it stands to reason if we children are capable of being guided by accident, they can also be manipulated on purpose. The movie Capturing the Friedman's has a good real life example of that.
Answer the question.
This is what I don't get about people that respond line by line, instead of reading a whole post first. If you discover someone answers a question or addresses a point you ask earlier, why don't you go back and erase the question or argument?
If you don't understand that I actually went ahead and answered your question, I am not sure what to say.
Do a lot fo 7-year-olds do that, or appear to have any interest in it?
Once again, I answered your question. I still am not sure why it is pertinent to anything being discussed, or why I would have to reduce "sex" to that single category, but I went ahead and answered your question anyway.
I dunno.
You seriously do not know if the mentally handicapped can and do get around to full penetrative sex? Obviously I am not discussing those who are essentially immobilized, but am discussing those whose mental capacities are reduced to that of very young children.
If it's just the violence you're concerned about, why have "rape" be a crime at all? Why not just prosecute on the assault that occured during what would be, to you, most likely a completely consensual act of sex?
I am uncertain where you got that I would view rape as being assault during a consensual sexual encounter. Rape is a category of crime, specifying the type of violent act. Analogously, since we have theft, why have grand theft auto? Since we have assault and battery, why do we need kidnapping? Rape is sexual violence... and it includes more than just full on penetrative sex to the orgasm of one of the participants.
Its possible we could just use assault and battery, without making it more specific, however most view that as involving an additional indignity and violation than a simple beating... indeed somewhat including kidnapping... and so worthy of its own classification and sentencing structure. I wouldn't argue against that.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 10:40 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 11:39 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 112 (280537)
01-21-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
01-21-2006 11:25 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
For example if the man was found in the act of beating the young girl who had massive genital damage and left in a near catatonic state, then I could say with more certainty that the sentence was rather unjust. If however this was something where what is being discussed is possible light genital fondling during a shower or while sitting on the guy's knee, then I could say that the sentence seemed more just... all of this regardless of whether she gave consent or not.
From what I understand, sexual abuse took place over a period of multiple years. But that's just what I've gleaned about the case from the breathless rightie talk show hosts, so, you know. Caveat emptor.
Now that I understand what you're saying, I agree.
Actually I understood you perfectly, though it stands to reason if we children are capable of being guided by accident, they can also be manipulated on purpose.
Sure. A defense attourney, for instance, could get a child to assert that it was all made up, if the child had not been adequately prepared by the prosecution to testify.
Once again, I answered your question. I still am not sure why it is pertinent to anything being discussed, or why I would have to reduce "sex" to that single category, but I went ahead and answered your question anyway.
"No", was the answer, I presume?
You seriously do not know if the mentally handicapped can and do get around to full penetrative sex?
No, obviously they can and do; I just don't know if they make porn about it. I presumed your question was rhetorical, and I was being facetious.
Its possible we could just use assault and battery, without making it more specific, however most view that as involving an additional indignity and violation than a simple beating... indeed somewhat including kidnapping... and so worthy of its own classification and sentencing structure. I wouldn't argue against that.
Then I guess I didn't know what you meant by "sex laws." Did you simply mean laws that criminalize certain sex acts, regardless of the consent of the participants? Like, say, statutory rape?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 11:25 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 11:53 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 93 of 112 (280538)
01-21-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
01-21-2006 11:39 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
"No", was the answer, I presume?
Well that would be a wrong presumption, though why you couldn't understand what I said I am still not sure.
Lets try this once more: Yes they do, though I do not know how often and I would suspect it would be very rare given the state of things (no instruction or guidance and all penalties when caught trying). There are cultures that included instruction and guidance among the very young and my guess is they did it much more... though I still couldn't tell you the frequency.
My one hesitation would be about orgasms. Without experience they may not even realize that is something they could have and so aim for. However some children do. Perhaps you need to read more on the subject.
The fact that you can understand adult people with mental disabilities can figure it out, makes me wonder why children of the same mental capacity wouldn't.
Did you simply mean laws that criminalize certain sex acts, regardless of the consent of the participants? Like, say, statutory rape?
Pretty much correct, anything that would be a morals law (inhibiting willful behavior of individuals), rather than a protective law (preventing violation of one person's rights by another).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 11:39 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 12:36 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 102 by nator, posted 01-22-2006 6:14 PM Silent H has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 112 (280542)
01-21-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
01-21-2006 9:56 AM


Re: Does it deserve jail?
"We think he should have gone to jail for abusing his authority as a teacher,” said Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz.
Yes, I notice this aspect of this case, too, but I didn't bring it up since randman's main interest seemed to be the homosexuality and/or the age of the participants.
I would agree that sanctions against a teacher for engaging in sexual relations with a student may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. I would disagree that the sanctions should include jail time; depending on circumstances, loss of employment and perhaps permanent black-listing would be sufficient.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2006 9:56 AM Modulous has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 112 (280544)
01-21-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Silent H
01-21-2006 11:53 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Well that would be a wrong presumption
Well, no, it isn't. You've just told me that you don't think it happens often, which is what I asked.
I'd say I was exactly right on. If you don't think that's the answer you gave then you didn't understand the question.
The fact that you can understand adult people with mental disabilities can figure it out, makes me wonder why children of the same mental capacity wouldn't.
If you believe it's simply a matter of mental capacity, then the term "puberty" is meaningless. Do pre-pubescents, in your experience, regularly experience libido and sexual desire?
Pretty much correct, anything that would be a morals law (inhibiting willful behavior of individuals), rather than a protective law (preventing violation of one person's rights by another).
Fair enough. I think there's still a worthy debate on whether or not statutory rape laws constitute a moral law or just a particularly ham-handed attempt at protection - probably both - but I agree with your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 11:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 1:12 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 96 of 112 (280551)
01-21-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
01-21-2006 12:36 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
I'd say I was exactly right on.
How could you be right on? You asked me a question of if X does Y often. My reply was in essence that it depends on the culture what the total frequency is, but yes they do. Often was left undefined so my statement is YES within the boundaries set by their environment.
You said my answer was "no", and your question itself appeared to imply that it was something ridiculous and would not happen. My answer wasn't no, and I don't think it is ridiculous as you seemd to be implying.
then the term "puberty" is meaningless. Do pre-pubescents, in your experience, regularly experience libido and sexual desire?
Puberty marks an increase and focus of desire, not the beginning of interest in blatantly sexual pleasure. What does regular or often mean to you? Relatively prepubescents engage in such activity to a lesser degree than post pubescents. That does not change the fact that it happens, often and regularly in reality.
I think there's still a worthy debate on whether or not statutory rape laws constitute a moral law or just a particularly ham-handed attempt at protection - probably both
I agree with that assessment.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 12:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 5:58 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 112 (280575)
01-21-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Silent H
01-21-2006 1:12 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
You asked me a question of if X does Y often.
And you said you didn't know how frequent it was, which implies not frequently at all. If it happened often, you'd know. We all would. So you did answer my question.
You said my answer was "no", and your question itself appeared to imply that it was something ridiculous and would not happen.
No, just not often. That was, after all, the question that I asked. Not "does it ever happen?" But "does it often happen?" You told me that it doesn't happen often. Which is what I asked.
What does regular or often mean to you?
As often as, say, post-pubescents. As often as, say, adults, who we have no question accepting that they have sexual desires, and would consent to such activites if they felt so inclined, etc. Often enough that we would find it reasonable that a given 7-year-old would consent to full-on penetrative intercourse with an adult male to the point of his orgasm.
You know, "often". It's a common word in English. The fact that you're suddenly ignorant of what it means is a pretty transparent clue that you're engaged in another one of your evasion games.
That does not change the fact that it happens, often and regularly in reality.
You seem pretty confident asserting that it happens "often", after just asking me what I meant by it. What do you mean by it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 1:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 01-22-2006 6:01 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 98 of 112 (280632)
01-22-2006 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
01-21-2006 5:58 PM


often
As often as, say, post-pubescents. As often as, say, adults, who we have no question accepting that they have sexual desires, and would consent to such activites if they felt so inclined, etc. Often enough that we would find it reasonable that a given 7-year-old would consent to full-on penetrative intercourse with an adult male to the point of his orgasm.
1) Whether you (you said "we" and I am not sure what group you are referring to) ACCEPT that prepubescents have sexual desires or not... they do. If you look into research on the subject you will find that indeed they engage in sexual play and seek it out in others. They are intrinsically amoral on that point and do have motivation of pleasure.
2) Whether they seek such pleasure as often, or have enough knowledge to specify what they are trying to attain, as postpubescents has no bearing on whether they do or not. You'll have to explain how a difference in "often" makes it impossible or less reasonable to assume something can occur, especially with consent. Ministers likely have sex less often than swingers, but it does not make it less likely or reasonable to suggest they won't engage in any acts.
3) That we do not know definitively how "often" anything occurs, does not mean that we can say it is reasonable to assume such an act has not occurred. I already gave you two very credible examples of this. My Korean friends were quite WRONG to assume that just because gay sex is not readily seen in Korea that it does not occur, and that it is reasonable to assume no one has engaged in it, or would consent to it. Neither does a lack of knowing how often the mentally disabled engage in sex mean it is reasonable to conclude that they do not, or would not consent to such acts.
4) The nature of this act in specific is likely to be less seen as actors usually do it when they are alone, and when they are not alone they are usually stopped. Are people supposed to count how many times kids are stopped from playing with each other, or only when they have been caught engaged in some final act? I have not seen cockroaches engaged in sex, and if I saw them about to they would be removed rather quickly. That does not mean that it is reasonable to conclude that they don't.
5) Your continued movement toward one definition of sex, so as to make the likelihood of such an act being done "often", as well as adding qualifiers to "often", is shifting the goal posts (now its to just his orgasm and "as often as postpubs"), and as I have already stated, answers to such questions are culture specific.
I did not say I didn't know what the meaning of "often" is. I said I did not know how you were suggesting it be quantified, as it is intrinsically environment specific, in order to draw any conclusion of "reasonable" that any person engage in such an activity.
I have also pointed out that "consent" is essentially a worthless concept. Or rather assumptions of consent... and you can tie that to "reasonableness" because of "often" as much as you like... have NO BASIS in scientific evidence. That you persistently return to this, when shown the literature, is not cool.
I doubt that a 7yo girl would willingly engage in full on penetrative intercourse with an adult male, primarily because of the damage that would inherently be inflicted by a full size penis. It seems reasonable to me that if a child is found with bodily damage inflicted on them that it was against the child's will, primarily because I have never seen and there is no evidence I know of for children desiring pain be inflicted on them by others. Very young children, on top of being amoral, are generally selfish and avoid intense pain, specifically when inflicted by others. Furthermore damage like that (as in severe not just sexual) can cause trauma.
And this is where we get back to detecting "consent" or "coercion". Though those might be slippery based on manipulation, detecting wounds of the nature that would be inflicted given the act described (limited to) would not be. That's how many actual rapes of children are detected and caught, though the child remain silent.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-22-2006 06:05 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 5:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2006 12:33 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 112 (280729)
01-22-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Silent H
01-22-2006 6:01 AM


Re: often
I have also pointed out that "consent" is essentially a worthless concept. Or rather assumptions of consent... and you can tie that to "reasonableness" because of "often" as much as you like... have NO BASIS in scientific evidence. That you persistently return to this, when shown the literature, is not cool.
Oh, shit! Holmes thinks I'm not cool!
Anyway, here's a group of people who I would be very interested to have their reactions to your idea that their consent was essentially worthless.
Get Cash Now - Instant Cash When You Need It Most

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 01-22-2006 6:01 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 01-22-2006 4:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 112 (280771)
01-22-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
01-22-2006 12:33 PM


Re: often
Anyway, here's a group of people who I would be very interested to have their reactions to your idea that their consent was essentially worthless.
You still have no clue as to what I am saying, because you want to cling to your own definitions. I did not in any way say their consent was worthless. I said that there is no basis in scientific evidence for assumptions about consent. Notice the second sentence that you quoted where I unpack what I meant by "consent" being worthless.
For shame.
And as far as your link goes, I was sexually assaulted/raped, so your condescension to pretend that the site provided some rebuttal to my statement has gone a bit over the top and personal for my taste.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2006 12:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by tsig, posted 01-22-2006 7:19 PM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 101 of 112 (280789)
01-22-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Silent H
01-20-2006 1:40 PM


quote:
Was the guy violently forcing her to do things, or did she want to do things he asked? I have no idea and that would make a lot of difference from my perspective.
Of course, there is a huge middle area between "violent forcing" and "the 7 year old wanted, of her own free will, to suck me off".
Every single adult in the world is an authority figure to the vast majority of 7 year olds, and thus a 7 year old is easily compelled to do what they are told.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 01-20-2006 1:40 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2006 6:50 PM nator has replied
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2006 4:38 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 112 (280792)
01-22-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Silent H
01-21-2006 11:53 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
quote:
The fact that you can understand adult people with mental disabilities can figure it out, makes me wonder why children of the same mental capacity wouldn't.
Maybe because an adult mentally handicapped person has an adult body with adult hormonal levels and has gone through puberty, and a 7 yar old has a childs body, a child's hormonal levels, and has not gone through puberty yet.
Puberty is supposed to signal to the rest of the species that a member of that species is ready an able to be sexually active.
Why you keep wanting to push sex on infants and children long before they are physically or hormonally equipped is really baffling.
Creepy, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 11:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2006 4:53 AM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 112 (280800)
01-22-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by nator
01-22-2006 5:56 PM


Every single adult in the world is an authority figure to the vast majority of 7 year olds, and thus a 7 year old is easily compelled to do what they are told.
Don't bother. I presented the exact same point to Holmes, and his response was to try to tell me that it's so common for a 7-year-old to want to have sex with someone that we shouldn't even bother with ideas of "consent." The little slut must have wanted it, after all.
That poor man, to have been led on so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 01-22-2006 5:56 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by nator, posted 01-22-2006 10:43 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2006 5:06 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 104 of 112 (280809)
01-22-2006 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
01-22-2006 4:55 PM


trying
You still have no clue as to what I am saying, because you want to cling to your own definitions. I did not in any way say their consent was worthless. I said that there is no basis in scientific evidence for assumptions about consent. Notice the second sentence that you quoted where I unpack what I meant by "consent" being worthless.
For shame.
And as far as your link goes, I was sexually assaulted/raped, so your condescension to pretend that the site provided some rebuttal to my statement has gone a bit over the top and personal for my taste.
Your pure reason has won me over I will try to get raped so I can reply to you on your level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 01-22-2006 4:55 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2006 5:16 AM tsig has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 105 of 112 (280850)
01-22-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
01-22-2006 6:50 PM


quote:
Don't bother. I presented the exact same point to Holmes, and his response was to try to tell me that it's so common for a 7-year-old to want to have sex with someone that we shouldn't even bother with ideas of "consent." The little slut must have wanted it, after all.
That poor man, to have been led on so.
LOL!
Yeah, well, I am having a really hard time sticking to one of my New Year's resolutions.
Thanks for the help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2006 6:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024