| Re: Opinion from the other side, professional writings, please read. |
http://groups.google.com |
| bobandcarole (bobandcarole555@hotmail.com) |
2006/12/18 20:38 |
Frank McCoy wrote:
> In alt.support.girl-lovers Naughty Boy <%+16$-Y-Not@here-and.there>
> wrote:
>
> >"Billy NP-g11" <me@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >news:a4Bch.270972$g12.184317@fe06.news.easynews.com:
> >
> >> Sexual behavior between adult and child or between two minors is
> >> neither harmful or harmless always. (p 40).
> >
> >"Always"? Yet some here, despite professing their "love" for children, ae
> >prepared to take that risk.
> >
> Saying something "isn't always" anything, especially saying it isn't
> always good or bad like this, doesn't really say anything except state
> the obvious that sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad ... Just
> like about anything you could name except perhaps deliberate torture
> which probably is always bad, and love which is probably always good.
>
> What matters is relative risk, and whether the person taking the risk
> would desire that risk taken by somebody else for him/her. EVERYTHING
> has risk. It's how much risk: how bad the possible bad result, and how
> good the probable good result, versus the relative chances of each one.
>
> When we drive a car, we take the relative risk of having an accident
> that might end up with one or more occupants of the car dead or horribly
> injured versus the benefit of getting to the store or work or just going
> Christmas Shopping. We don't lock ourselves up at home and don't leave,
> just because there's a possibility of some horrid accident. Usually
> when we head for the Mall, we don't even consciously *think* about
> possible accidents; though the chance likely is always there in the back
> of our minds (as it should be to make us cautious drivers). Thus, in
> sex, condoms are often used as protection for both parties (especially
> if strangers), in a similar manner as we insist that all people be
> buckled up with seatbelts, even if only driving to the Quickie-Mart.
> Why greatly increase the risk of the bad result for a little
> inconvenience?
>
> Those who ass-u-me that sexual activity for a "child" (You define the
> age.) is always bad, are just as mistaken as those who ass-u-me that
> it's always good. The truth is somewhere between the two extremes.
> That, of course, is modified by what kind of sexual activity, who
> initiates it, where it takes place, the actual age of the "children"
> involved (VERY different for a 10-year-old versus a 15-year-old) and a
> million other items not usually considered in the Black-Versus-White
> statements most people make about "children having sex".
>
> Sex should *never* be painful or abuse. Sadly, in many cases (age
> aside) it sometimes is for some people. Sex is natural, normal, and
> usually good for you. Abuse, on the other hand, is almost always bad,
> painful (mentally, at the very least), and often has lasting bad
> effects. The two should *never* be combined; though it's obvious that
> those who abuse in any manner will be likely to add sexual abuse to
> their repertoire as they grow more jaded and want to hurt their victims
> even more. ;-{
>
> Still, confusing sexual activity with sexual abuse, even with young
> people, is fully as wrong as confusing sex with love. All three, abuse.
> sex, and love arouse strong emotions, but are three entirely separate
> activities/emotions. It's just that sex is *best* when combined with
> love, and *worst* when combined with abuse. That doesn't make having
> sex equate to sexual-abuse, no matter what the age, any more than it
> equates to making-love.
>
> What matters *most* is the attitude of the people having sex.
> Do they care for each other?
> Does each person want what's best for the other.
> Is the other person feeling good important to the first person feeling
> good?
>
> OR:
> Does one person or the other "get off" on knowing the other person
> hurts?
> Does either person not *care* how the other feels?
> Is either one just "using" the other for sexual gratification?
> Does the other person not liking something not matter to either or both?
>
> Answering "Yes" to *all three* of the first set of questions usually
> defines "making love" while having sex.
>
> Answering "Yes" to *any* of the second set of four questions usually
> defines "sexual abuse"; though not necessarily. It *can* be just
> apathy, like a prostitute taking money for sex, or even just two
> strangers using each other to relieve sexual tension and frustration.
>
> Rarely though, is sex fully making love; as one person almost always
> gets more out of it than the other. Rarely also is full outright sexual
> abuse; as most people don't *intend* to hurt the other while having sex.
>
> There are, of course, many exceptions.
> Those who *always* make love, often find it hard to believe that sexual
> abuse exists; while those who have *only* experienced sexual abuse
> sometimes think that's just what sex is.
>
> Also (my usual rant): Those who believe sex is bad or evil, whether
> from growing up and experiencing only sex-as-abuse, or being brainwashed
> into thinking-so by parents either pushing religion at them or "trying
> to protect them" by making them scared of any attempt at sex, usually
> have a hard time experiencing sex as an expression of love, and at the
> same time will almost automatically suspect anybody else of having evil
> intentions if he/she goes out *looking* for sex with anybody.
>
> From that we get the argument that sex is *always* bad for children.
> Unsupported by any study, but assumed by most people.
> Especially so when the word "children" is deliberately left undefined;
> and assumed to be prepubescent when declaiming the horrors, yet
> including late teenagers when defining rules and punishments.
>
> Thus we get a 24-year-old man being called a "baby-fucker" for being
> seduced by a 17-year-old Sophomore in High-School who has been having
> sex for the last four years, and people justifying raising the Age of
> Consent to 18 as "protecting children from perverts who want to rape
> babies."
Yeah, that's right....NEXT.....
|
|
|