Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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 60 of 112 (280206)
01-20-2006 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
01-20-2006 1:09 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Man are you getting the treatment. I'm not sure I like the new format of EvC, which is apparently for an "audience" rather than the people trying to discuss subjects, and apparently for mods to act as they will. Sheesh.
I got where you were going with it from the initial OP. I will agree with others that no one can make a judgement on this specific case from what we have to work with, and that progay (if she was) does not immediately translate to supporting other sexual rights. But it was and is rather obvious you were moving toward a theoretical discussion of sexual rights, whether they are correct and whether a judge can be considered biased on such cases if they themselves are in a sexual minority.
You took a guess at my position and you were somewhat close. Yes it is a right to have sex with others that wish to have sex with you. That is what underlies homosexual sexual rights as well as those involving age or race or anything else.
However, I also believe that parents have a right to raise their children according to their own customs, and so can and should have the ability to override the choice of their child to have sex. Obviously there must be a line where the rights of the child must override wishes of the parents, but where that is is another discussion. I don't believe it is age of majority (for voting rights for instance) and many states and nations agree with this, by setting a different line.
In addition, there are issues when dealing with teachers and other professionals entrusted with the care of children by parents. They pretty much have a right to expect that they are not about to get "service" beyond the scope of why they sent their kid to the person, and certainly not for subjects against their will.
Thus I see a legitimate case to be made for laws regarding age and sex, though they have essentially nothing in common with the current sex laws on the subject. The Dutch used to have one of the better systems until they recently decided to accept US law as their model.
I don't think judges will necessarily be biased or must recuse themselves from sexual rights cases because they may be a sexual minority, or if they support sexual minorities. Personal opinion will always be an issue with judges on just about any case. The question is if they can put them away to make fair decisions based more on logic than ad hoc reasoning. It will be up to those who put and keep them in office to make such assessments based on case decision.
Of course it is true that in a choice between having a judge biased for the defendant than against I'd prefer the former, leniency is less worrisome to me than oppression.
Cue laugh track.

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 56 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 1:09 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:21 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 61 of 112 (280212)
01-20-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Nuggin
01-20-2006 1:34 AM


Re: Lurker Mode!
Is there really anyone who thinks otherwise?
Yeah, probably you. At what age do you think sex should be legal and not defined as statuatory rape? I assume you have some age in mind. My guess it is somewhere between 1-21, which means that you must disagree with some state or nation's definition and will disagree whether a statuatory rapist deserves jail time.
I don't agree that statuatory rape... as opposed to rape... is a "real" crime, it is a moral crime. There may be reasons to allow criminal prosecution of it, though not initiated by the state, and I am not certain that jail time is a solution. I'm not dead set against it depending on the case, but I don't see why rand's question is silly.

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 58 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2006 1:34 AM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 75 of 112 (280316)
01-20-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by randman
01-20-2006 10:21 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
The guy though that molested the 7 year old girl only getting 60 days seems unjust to the victim's family.
Without more to go on, I really can't say what I think is just or unjust. 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. The mother said the girl could not be with the family which left me wondering what happened.
That said, the judge explained his position which was not that he felt that such conduct should not be criminalized, rather that he didn't believe in punishment for crimes at all. That is a completely different question and it just happened to impact on that specific kind of case. His rationale was that the state is better off attempting to rehabilitate, and backed up the short sentence with life imprisonment should he fail to go through rehab.
Maybe that made sense? I don't know, though I could see where a family might not be happy with such a sentence.
more liberal states like Vermont and Massuchusetts that are pushing gay marriage are more likely to push for allowing or going light on child molestation as well
I don't think one thing will naturally lead to another but it is possible that those predisposed to questioning morals laws will question all and not just specific ones. I would ask what would be the problem if this did occur? Or maybe I should ask, how would that not be any more a concern than those states against gay marriage promoting other restrictive legislation?
In the end change happens and different states will move at different rates (and sometimes in opposite directions). There are members of the SC who support less restrictive laws regarding sex, and note differences between the states as well as laws in other nations.
However, if a parent were allowing their small children to have sex with a friend they have over for dinner, it still strikes me as, well, perverse and probably detrimental to the child.
Well I won't argue with what you should or shouldn't find perverse. Given that we allow children to be circumcized, spanked, yelled at, instructed that they are born evil/worthless, and forced through potentially degrading public events by strangers I think the question of "detrimental to the child" is not so clear cut.
But its not like I'm working a double standard. I also support the rights of parents to withhold medical treatment on religious grounds... and I think we can agree that that would be clearly "detrimental".
adult men going after underage but past puberty teens is more widespread and accepted than what is openly acknowledged.
I'm not sure what the percentages are but it seems to me there are also plenty of straight people interested in those currently classified as underage. It may be that those within a persecuted sexual minority are more comfortable and open about discussing or pursuing other unpopular sexual activities.
As homosexuality is normalized... the age of consent will be lowered either legally or in practical terms in terms of enforcement.
It is possible, just as was the idea that homosexuality might be normalized after interracial sex was allowed. All I can say is that this possibility does not concern me, and in fact I believe such advancements in freedom would be better off for all involved.

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 65 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:21 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 3:47 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 101 by nator, posted 01-22-2006 5:56 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 76 of 112 (280319)
01-20-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
01-20-2006 1:37 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
fairly mainstream view of something considered broadly detrimental to a child, and not merely something I personally disagree with.
I would agree that your view is mainstream, but that does not make it factual nor legitimate for the state to involve itself in AS OPPOSED TO anything else.
It seems chiro is asking why that single issue gets to be restricted by the state (according to you) but other issues which may be mainstream would not?
Using an example, if it became mainstream to view religious indoctrination of children as detrimental, would you believe that should then be restricted? If you begin looking through data you might be surprised to find more support for that view than that sexual contact is "detrimental" to children. Indeed children engage in it all the time.
I suppose we are getting OT with this, but when discussing family rights, what is the criteria for when the state should take over as parent?

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 74 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 1:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 2:03 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 81 of 112 (280330)
01-20-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by randman
01-20-2006 2:03 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
on the issue of religion, there is the matter of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
Religious freedom is not capable of covering everything, especially children if we are stating that they do not enjoy the same freedoms as adults. If religious instruction were deemed harmful as a practice, it most certainly could (under current rules) be negated.
In terms of thinking this is a single issue though, I am not sure where anyone would get that from my posts.
I'm not sure what you meant by this. I didn't intend to distort your position. If I seem to be missing something, or in some way shortchanging your position, just try and clarify it.
The child would have to be young enough and the abuse severe enough to pose a threat to the life and health of the child.
Okay, lets start with this: physical abuse. I am with the idea that the state, as a protector of civil rights of citizens, has a function of protecting citizens from physical abuse. But what counts as physical abuse? That's part of the problem with this issue.
Sexual activity of minors does not intrinsically cause physical or emotional harm. Thus how does it get classified as physical abuse, particularly when there is often no outward indication of problems? Spanking is inherently the infliction of physical suffering, yet does not get classified as abuse at all, despite children voicing their anger and fear and sometimes bruising. It does not get classified as abuse until more serious physical harm is evident outside the "norm" of physical suffering inflicted.
I am clearly outside the majority in that I do not idolize children, nor demonize sexual activity. In this way age doesn't mean anything to me for adding a protective need from the state (a 50 yo should be protected just as much as a 5 month old), and I can't view unforced sexual activity as posing a threat, much less to life and health.
I also do not view the inability of the gov't to pass laws against something, as encouragement of such activity.
if the majority decides a basic, well-established freedom is no longer proper, then the majority's wishes should not be codified into law and practice.
We already prevent some religious practices to take place, due to conflict with laws. And I might add that sexual freedom is also a right that people have. The point is that children (currently) are not viewed as having the same rights as adults and indeed the state can step in to protect them. If the majority decides that religious indoctrination in the young is a dangerous practice, it would NOT be rejecting the well established freedom of religion to deny that practice. After all, once reaching a certain age (at least the age of majority) the child will be able to learn whatever religion they want.
I hope you see that I am not simply trying to punk on your position, but to raise legitimate questions of what system/criteria are being used, and looking at what results there could be in each one.
I know that my own allows for some pretty unpopular activity to occur, including activity that is almost inarguably physically harmful to a child (denying med treatment). I prefer to isolate tragedies to individual families, rather than allowing the state to take over and spread the potential tragedy to all families.

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 78 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 2:03 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 86 of 112 (280368)
01-20-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
01-20-2006 3:47 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
How could we possibly know? How would we distinguish her "consent" from coercion?
What does consent have to do with my answer? And yes I would suggest that if there was a violent rape there would be some evidence for it. The "justness" of the sentence would to my mind be more obvious if I knew what we were talking about, including if there was an open question of what occurred because we have no evidence at all.
She certainly wouldn't be able to.
Not that it matters to my answer, but why couldn't she tell us if she was coerced?
If this is reasonable behavior, why don't we see 7-year-olds trying to have sex with each other more often?
Heheheh... have kids, then you'll see it. I've already presented evidence that indeed children engage in sexual play from extremely young ages. What happens is that when caught beginning or engaging in such activity, they usually get stopped by adults. And adults generally don't discuss it.
I had some Korean friends that believed there were no gays in Korea. They were brought up in the same stifling atmosphere regarding activity and discussion of the existence of such activity. Despite their conviction due to popular Korean myths on the subject, it happens all the same.
I might ask how often people see septagenarians engaging in sex. My guess is they do.
detection of coercion.
I have already explained why this is a redundant concept for law. Detection of "harm" or potential for harm is much more easily obtained and makes more sense. If you can't remember what it is, I'm not getting into it again here.
What is coercion, in your view?
Coercion is anything where a person feels like they have no option but to engage in something they do not want to engage in. Although power difference can allow for coercion, it does not automatically imply or determine coercion. Neither necessarily create harm, though violent or repetitious coercive acts are likely to do so.

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 82 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 3:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 6:20 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 88 of 112 (280461)
01-21-2006 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
01-20-2006 6:20 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
To determine rape.
My answer was about the justness of the sentence, which does not necessarily hinge on consent to determine whether "rape" occured.
If you're drawing a dichotomy between consensual sex and violent rape, that's a false dichotomy.
I honestly don't understand your point. Did you mean nonconsensual sex and rape? To me it seems there is a huge difference between consensual sex and violent rape.
It takes a trained professional to do the interrogation, and even then, the testimony of a child is always suspect, perhaps unless they're talking to another child.
If that is the case, then who cares? I mean I do realize kids can be coerced, or guided, into providing false testimony, I just don't buy that we are always left in a state of pure ignorance regarding the matter, or that they are left in a state of pure ignorance.
If this were true then I guess my recommendation is that we have no sex laws, and instead provide counselors to convince kids to say nothing happened, or that whatever happened they absolutely loved it. The result would be better than a public trial.
Full-on penetrative intercourse to at least one participant's orgasm. That's what we're talking about; not mutual masturbation, or fondling, or exploration. Is that something we see commonly among 7-year-olds?
Shifting the goal posts is not going to work. We don't know what occurred here, much less that it was full-on penetrative sex. Adults who mastrubate, fondle, and otherwise explore children are put away for rape just the same as that counts for sex. You asked about sex, and yes kids that age engage in it.
I am not sure how often explorations lead to full on penetrative sex, though my guess would be not often since they have less information and guidance and so are trying to work things out all on their own. Same goes for reaching orgasm. If you deprive a person of all knowledge of a subject and attempt to stop them at every instance you catch them trying to engage in it, it is less likely they will advance very far.
On the other hand there were cultures which actually trained children from a young age, my guess is that they did more often than not.
Depends on what section of the video store you're in, I guess.
Fair enough, how about the mentally handicapped?
I'm not convinced about that; I'm particularly less convinced after reading about a judge who both threw out a legitimate rape conviction and charged the victim with filing a false report based on his own subjective opinion that she didn't seem to demonstrate enough "harm."
Your answer... particularly your example of the judge throwing out the case... demonstrates that you have not read my overt statements of how "harm" or potential for harm could be demonstrated, based on modern scientific findings. Instead you have used the common concepts of how to measure it, which I have derided as well, before explaining how it would be done. In other words it is a complete strawman.
I am not interested in repeating it once again. You can read through threads I have pointed out to you in the past.
Although I am on record as stating that I think we could do well enough with absolutely no sex laws at all (beyond violent rape), I am also on record explaining that I am for parental rights as well as willing to offer protection of children's sexual self determination to such an extent that while adult-child sex would likely occur somewhere, it would not be some freewheeling NAMBLA-paradise where rapists would be given a leg up over children or parents that desire protection.
If you can find the old (before two years ago) Dutch law regarding child sex, one of the best that was ever around (may it one day return), you will see the level of evidence I find useful for such cases is much lower than your example. Thankfully it dovetailed nicely with modern evidence for what can be used to measure likelihood of harm having occured.

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 87 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 6:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 10:40 AM Silent H has replied

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 106 of 112 (280872)
01-23-2006 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by nator
01-22-2006 5:56 PM


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".
And thus a wide range between knowing whether the ruling was "just" or not. I might add I din't even know if it was oral sex. Fondling (him touching her or her touching him) can count as rape as well. What I find funny is I said I don't know, not I know that the sentence was unjust because the guy should have been let go. Its very possible I think this guy should have gotten a lot more jail time.

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 101 by nator, posted 01-22-2006 5:56 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 107 of 112 (280873)
01-23-2006 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by nator
01-22-2006 6:14 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
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.
Really? Show me the evidence for that conclusion. On top of human prepubescents engaging in sexual play with themselves and each other, one can find post-prepubescent sexual behavior in other animal species. I have already submitted evidence of this to you.
Puberty indicates that reproduction is possible, and there is certainly a heightened sexual response in both partners. There is no evidence of total loss of sexual interest before that time.
Oh yeah not to mention that gays often use the fact that they have sexual attraction to same sex partners at very young ages as indication that it is not a choice. I assume you reject such claims as erroneous?
Why you keep wanting to push sex on infants and children long before they are physically or hormonally equipped is really baffling.
Push? I have spent several posts explaining that parents can deny their children's sexual activity and children should be empowered to deny it in a way they do not have at this point in time. What I have been arguing for is that the State mechanisms, that is the state determining when someone is ready, shift to the parents and the child.
I did not suggest it should shift to the people that want to have sex with children. The fact that you continue to use a strawman of my position to create a guilt by association and emotional appeal argument is baffling and disappointing. The fact that you insist and wish to enforce the idea that children are not physically or hormonally (???) equipped to engage in sexual play, despite evidence to the contrary, is creepy.
My position may make noncriminals out of some adults who have sex with children. Your position makes aberrations and criminals out of children, simply because you want to believe in political and moral propaganda. Really, kids engage in it on their own. Open some sexological texts or research on the subject.

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 102 by nator, posted 01-22-2006 6:14 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 108 of 112 (280875)
01-23-2006 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
01-22-2006 6:50 PM


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's not what I said at all. Indeed that is a gross misrepresentation of my position. Once more:
1) I could not tell if the sentence was "just" because I did not know what happened. Ironically mods supported that position earlier, but refuse to now.
2) It is common for children to engage in sexual play. That is a fact and one you have not bothered to try and counter. This fact may be new to other readers, but it shouldn't be to you since I have supplied the evidence before.
3) The question of "often" is vague and you still have not suggested a way to quantify it in order to have any meaning. You have shifted to "as often as" and now "common". I have given you counterexamples to show why frequency, comparative frequency, and knowledge of comparative frequency is insufficient to draw conclusions of if an individual could or did consent.
4) The issue of consent is not that people are incapable of voicing consent, or that we are incapable of trying to determine consent. The issue is that one cannot assume consent based on miscellaneous pieces of data as you have been doing. You have been pointed to threads with full scientific evidence on this matter already. It is the latest and fullest state of knowledge on this subject. Hence your pretense to use science is fully rebutted. You don't even try when it is your "god" on the chopping block.
5) You called the girl a slut, if she wanted sexual contact. That pretty much reveals your hangup with sex. Really, kids have and do engage in sexual play. Read sexological literature as well as anthropological literature on the subject. Is that how you are going to view your child when you catch them playing with themselves and others?

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 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