Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 4:35 AM
17 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,107 Year: 5,144/19,786 Month: 1,266/873 Week: 162/460 Day: 7/97 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Should this guy have served time?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3928 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 responded

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

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 77 of 112 (280320)
01-20-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
01-20-2006 1:37 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
quote:
Can you clarify your stance, please? Are you saying parents should be allowed to invite people over to have sex with their small children, or not?

I am asking that very question. Should parents be allowed to allow their children to have sex with adults? Should parents be allowed to allow adults to have sex with their children? Are there situations where such a thing definitely be against the best interests of the child? If so, is that enough to justify state intervention?

I think that the other question I asked is very relevant as to whether ones opinions on this matter is based on one's beliefs as to right and wrong or based on practical benefits verses harm to the child.

Imagine that we lived in a society that accepted sex with children (such have existed, by the way, so this is not a stretch), and suppose that the best available research concluded that sex with adults was actually beneficial to children. Would you then agree that the state should encourage sex between children and adults, or is it your moral beliefs that are determining your stance here?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 2:07 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 78 of 112 (280321)
01-20-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
01-20-2006 1:50 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Holmes, on the issue of religion, there is the matter of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. I actually am quite willing to accept that mainstream opinion can be wrong, and that we should err on the side of family and parental rights.

In terms of thinking this is a single issue though, I am not sure where anyone would get that from my posts. For example, I would think serious physical abuse should be looked into by the state, but once again, I am not in the majority in that I would not take a child from parents just for some physical abuse. 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.

But that does not mean abuse cannot be real, and that there are not times that the state should intervene. If the majority decides that it's OK and acceptable practice to encourage pedophilia with thier small children, then probably the law should reflect the majority's wishes, but I certainly would counsel all families to avoid doing that.

However, 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 01-20-2006 1:50 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 01-20-2006 2:42 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 112 (280323)
01-20-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Chiroptera
01-20-2006 1:57 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
am asking that very question. Should parents be allowed to allow their children to have sex with adults?

I've already given my answer in stating that I do not believe pedophilia should be legalized. Now, will you answer and state your position?

Imagine that we lived in a society that accepted sex with children (such have existed, by the way, so this is not a stretch), and suppose that the best available research concluded that sex with adults was actually beneficial to children. Would you then agree that the state should encourage sex between children and adults, or is it your moral beliefs that are determining your stance here?

I do not think the state should "encourage" pedophilia, even in that situation, but if the society predominantly accepted pedophilia as normal, then I do not think the state should outlaw it, but at the same time, I would still say it is wrong and that families should not do that.

In some respects, I take the same position with illegal drug use. I do think it is right; don't want to encourage it, but considering how prevalent it's use is, I don't think the state should continue to make drug abuse illegal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 1:57 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 3:50 PM randman has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 80 of 112 (280324)
01-20-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
01-20-2006 1:37 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Sorry; I had to finish that last post quickly since someone came into my office on business.

quote:
For me, I probably err more on the side of protecting familial and parental rights than the safety and well-being of the child.

I, too, would err on the side of protecting familial rights over overprotection by the state. In fact, I would agree with someone who just said (was it holmes) that families should be allowed to withhold medical treatment on religious grounds. And which would be worse, allowing a child to die from a perhaps treatable illness or allowing a child to engage in sexual activity?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 5:05 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3928 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 yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 112 (280349)
01-20-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Silent H
01-20-2006 1:40 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Was the guy violently forcing her to do things, or did she want to do things he asked?

How could we possibly know? How would we distinguish her "consent" from coercion? She certainly wouldn't be able to.

How reasonable is it to suggest that a 7-year-old would want to have sex with an adult man? How many 7-year-olds wind up having sex with anybody on their own initiative? If this is reasonable behavior, why don't we see 7-year-olds trying to have sex with each other more often?

Just some questions. Not trying to defend ages of consent, but rather, detection of coercion. What is coercion, in your view? Have you ever told me? Can coercion ever be based not on the threat of physical violence, but merely on the disparity of power between two people who aren't peers?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 01-20-2006 5:39 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 83 of 112 (280350)
01-20-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
01-20-2006 2:07 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
quote:
Imagine that we lived in a society that accepted sex with children (such have existed, by the way, so this is not a stretch), and suppose that the best available research concluded that sex with adults was actually beneficial to children. Would you then agree that the state should encourage sex between children and adults, or is it your moral beliefs that are determining your stance here?

I do not think the state should "encourage" pedophilia, even in that situation....


The situation that I made up was one where a reasonable person could conclude that sexual activity was beneficial for minors; you are then saying that your views on this subject are not entirely based on benefits vs. harm to the child. Or perhaps due to a religious belief, that sex outside of marriage is a "sin" and therefore automatically constitutes "harm" regardless of what any investigation into this matter would show. There is nothing inherently wrong with such an view, and I am not automatically dismissing it if it is how you feel.

Then you state:

quote:
...but if the society predominantly accepted pedophilia as normal, then I do not think the state should outlaw it....

Is this a general principle that you hold? That the state should not act against the beliefs and practices accepted by the (majority of) the people? Yet, you unquestionably have a sense of right and wrong; would I be correct if I were to say that you believe that the proper way to enact social change is to persuade the people at large that the policies in which you believe are beneficial? That state power should not be used against the wishes of the majority, even if it is for a "good cause"?


"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 79 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 2:07 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 5:02 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 84 of 112 (280359)
01-20-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Chiroptera
01-20-2006 3:50 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Yet, you unquestionably have a sense of right and wrong; would I be correct if I were to say that you believe that the proper way to enact social change is to persuade the people at large that the policies in which you believe are beneficial? That state power should not be used against the wishes of the majority, even if it is for a "good cause"?

In general, you are correct, but still missing a little. For example, I think where someone's civil liberties are being violated such as under Jim Crow, that it is proper for the state to go against the morals and views of the majority.

However, I don't think the State should be in the business of trying to make better people, improving people morally, and trying to legislate morality in a manner that pits the State against the wills of the majority unless that will is causing harm to individual rights, etc,..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 3:50 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 85 of 112 (280362)
01-20-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Chiroptera
01-20-2006 2:11 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Religious issues are entirely different and protected by the COnstitution to a great extent. The thing about allowing the child to die due to a lack of medical treatment is that plenty of people die due to the medical treatment. There is risk and a judgment call. Families should be free to pursue the treatment they think is best whether prayer alone, traditional modern medicine, or alternative medicine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 2:11 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3928 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 responded

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

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 112 (280371)
01-20-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Silent H
01-20-2006 5:39 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
What does consent have to do with my answer?

To determine rape.

And yes I would suggest that if there was a violent rape there would be some evidence for it.

If you're drawing a dichotomy between consensual sex and violent rape, that's a false dichotomy. I don't think you're doing that on purpose, but this would be another classic example of you almost completely failing to be clear.

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.

Fair enough. All I know about the case has been from outraged conservative talk show hosts, so effectively, I know nothing.

Not that it matters to my answer, but why couldn't she tell us if she was coerced?

Oh, I'm sure we could get her to say "I didn't want to do it", if we asked in the right way; I'm sure that we could also get her to say "I wanted to do it" if we asked in the right way, as well.

Maybe you don't talk with a lot of 7-year-olds? It's next to impossible to accurately interview children at that age because they're very good at picking up on what they're "supposed" to say or do, and an adult can very easily lead them to the answer that they want, sometimes without even knowing it. 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.

Heheheh... have kids, then you'll see it. I've already presented evidence that indeed children engage in sexual play from extremely young ages.

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?

I might ask how often people see septagenarians engaging in sex.

Depends on what section of the video store you're in, I guess. :D

Detection of "harm" or potential for harm is much more easily obtained and makes more sense.

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." Keep in mind that a common reaction to extremely traumatic events is an almost perfect outward appearance of calm. Also, the statute of limitations for rape is typically a few years. Waiting around to see if "harm" eventually manifests violates the suspect's constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, so your "harm" construct would appear, at best, to be legally useless and at worst, a miscarriage of justice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 01-20-2006 5:39 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 5:24 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3928 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 responded

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

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 112 (280498)
01-21-2006 9:56 AM


Does it deserve jail?
source

quote:
“This young man was six weeks short of his 16th birthday and it was completely consensual on both sides and I said that on the bench,” Superior Court Judge Suzanne V. DelVecchio said...

In this case I do not think that a jail sentence is justified. However, the prosecution wanted a stronger sentence, not because of the statutary rape but because:

quote:
“I certainly respect the judge’s decision. We disagree with it. We think he should have gone to jail for abusing his authority as a teacher,” said Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz.

The man committed rape based on falling short of an arbitrary age line by about 42 days, I think therefore that that the minimum sentence possible should be applied since this is the minimum way in which one can commit statutary rape. Consensual sex, just short of being 16.

As for the other case...I don't think its relevant since it is not dealing with either homosexuality nor is it dealing with statutary rape. The other case is child abuse (I believe he was charged with sexual abuse of a child).

This case is interesting actually...and the judge has brought to our attention a big problem with the system. There was a choice the judge had between councelling with highly stringent conditions (breaking these conditions would mean a life sentence) or a small (8 years?) prison sentence with no help.

The judge decided treatment was preferable to delaying the problem by about 10 years or so. This decision has led directly to a new ruling where all sex offenders recieve mandatory councelling, meaning a judge does not have to make this either or decision.


Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Chiroptera, posted 01-21-2006 12:21 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 112 (280513)
01-21-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Silent H
01-21-2006 5:24 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
My answer was about the justness of the sentence, which does not necessarily hinge on consent to determine whether "rape" occured.

I guess I don't understand. By definition, rape is unconsensual sex. Therefore establishing consent, or the lack of same, is the critical basis for prosecuting rape.

Are you defining "rape" in a differentway than the law does? If consent is irrelevant to you then I don't understand what you mean when you say "rape."

To me it seems there is a huge difference between consensual sex and violent rape.

That didn't come through in your post at all, which is why I asked. 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.

Like I said, I'm sure this is just an example of how poorly you often communicate your ideas. If you could go back and elucidate the part of your post that I've been referring to, I'd appreciate it.

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.

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. It's a lot like the "recovered memory" movement - poor interview techniques actually implanted the "memories" of childhood ritual abuse that they had hoped to uncover.

Shifting the goal posts is not going to work.

I'm not shifting the goalposts. I'm clarifying what activities I meant by "sex." Full-on penetrative intercourse to at least one participant's orgasm. Answer the question. Is that something we see a lot of 7-year-olds engaged in? I don't have kids so I don't know. You claim to have some knowledge on the subject, so I'm asking you. Do we see that, often?

You asked about sex, and yes kids that age engage in it.

I wasn't being clear, so naturally you assumed I meant third-base kind of stuff. So let me be clearer. Full-on penetrative intercourse to the point of at least one person's orgasm. Do a lot fo 7-year-olds do that, or appear to have any interest in it?

Fair enough, how about the mentally handicapped?

I dunno. A quick google came up with about a thousand links for "retard porn." Didn't actually see any, though. Just people who thought that was a funny phrase.

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)

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 5:24 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2006 11:25 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019