laurence@iapetus.plus.com wrote:
> XXX wrote:
> > 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You've repeatedly blamed society for the harm that comes to children
> >> who become sexually involved with adults -- you blame society for
> >> making the gun.
> >
> > And without the gun there would still be no damage.
> >
> >> But the gun doesn't go off unless someone pulls the trigger; ie, no
> >> child is harmed unless an adult pulls the trigger and gets sexually
> >> involved with a child.
> >
> > Again, without the gun there would be no damage. With the gun there
> > could be damage when someone else (not an adult) pulls the trigger
> > (like when society finds out that a 12-year-old impregnated his
> > 13-year-old girlfriend and charges both with sexual assaulting the
> > other). Safer and better to do away with the gun than to leave it
> > around to be used. It is the gun that is bad.
>
> Yes, but look at it this way: If a child has sex with someone,
> especially an adult, there's a chance that the child would be harmed
> by the experience. In good-to-ideal circumstances, that chance is
> probably pretty low. (And the likelihood of the circumstances being
> good-to-ideal is also pretty low).
Isn't that true with children having sex with children, as well? Maybe
chastity belts are the answer. A child having a sexual relationship with
an adult who knows what that child can handle is MUCH safer than some kids
going at it in the back of a car when they don't know what they are doing.
> However, should anyone in authority find out (which is quite
> possible), the chance of harm occurring rapidly becomes very high. Can
> you allow that harm to occur just because it's someone else's fault?
I'm saying that we need to change things so that it is no longer a taboo,
so that people don't need to worry about the "authorities finding out"
because there are no consequences from the authorities.
> For me, I simply could not risk the chance that someone I feel for
> could be harmed by things largely out of his (or her) control. While
> sex is nice, safety is nicer, and much more valuable.
But things don't change by keeping "safe". If the younger person wants the
activity, knows that society believes that it is wrong, but still is
willing, then this is one way to change things. Civil disobedience.
> Have sex with a kid, and it might result in his/her life being screwed
> up; even if the sex itself isn't the primary cause, it's still the
> underlying factor.
>
> Much better not to, just in case.
Do you believe that kids shouldn't play sports, learn to drive, or go to
school? Those things also all have risk. A sports injury, a car accident,
or learning that live was created via evolutionary processes ALSO can
"screw up" a child's life. Isn't is better not to, just in case???
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|