4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:41:08 +0000, Laurence Taylor
> <see-headers@nospam.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).
> >
> >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?
>
> That's where the metaphor of the gun comes in. Even if it's society's
> fault (and I'm not conceding that it always is or even most of the
> time is) unless you pull the trigger, no one gets harmed. If the child
> came to you, then you have the chance to teach them that it's okay to
> say "no." You have the chance to show them that love is better than
> sex.
>
> We see so many times that kids find their parents guns with tragic
> results -- and there is always an outcry against guns, but the gun was
> not the problem, the parents' failing to provide a safe environment is
> the problem.
No, actually, the problem is that there was a gun, at all. If society
didn't have the ideas that it has then the gun wouldn't exist and that harm
isn't going to happen.
Yes, people CAN be hurt by sex, but doing away with the age of consent
would not mean that it would be a sexual free-for-all with children. It
isn't as if there was no such thing as statutory rape that there wouldn't
still be laws outlawing rape and sexual assault. I am not saying that kids
can't say no. I am saying that kids can say yes. When I talk to my
daughter about sex I have ALWAYS taught her that she can say no. But it is
bullshit to tell someone that they can say no if they CAN'T say yes!
> The real problem I have with your (XXX's) attitude is that you seem to
> think that the gun can go away -- but it can't. Society is here to
> stay, and whether we agree with it on some particular issue or not, we
> are stuck living within it. Over time, societal ideals change, we know
> this. It hasn't been that long since we used to laugh at the Beverly
> Hillbillies and their notion that Elly May was an old maid at the age
> of 14. And it hasn't been that long since 14 or so was the average age
> at which people got married. But some ideas aren't going to change --
> and the fact remains that there are too many ways that sexual activity
> can be harmful to children to suddenly allow it to be considered okay,
> even if the majority of children of a certain age could handle it if
> the societal influence were not there.
The real problem I have wit your (4s00th's) attitude is that you seem to
have the "can win so don't try" attitude. Who ever said anything about
changing things overnight? It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal to
marry someone of a different race. It wasn't that long ago that it was
illegal to have sex with someone of the same sex. It wasn't that long ago
that people would never have even THOUGHT about the idea that you could
MARRY someone of the same sex. I am not just interested in changing things
for myself, I want things to change for my daughter and for my future
grandchildren. I am not just talking about adults having sex with
children, I am talking about children having sex with other children,
children having the RIGHT to make decisions for themselves, children having
the RIGHT to learn accurate information instead of "just say no". I am
talking about people not having shame because they have had sex, regardless
of their age. And I also talking about helping people who have been forced
to have sex at a young age, because if sex was normalized for children then
child rape wouldn't have the double shame for the victims ("Oh, she has
lost her innocence! She has lost her childhood!" When did innocence and
childhood = virginity? I have known many, many children who have been
involved sexually who were still very much innocent and child-like).
> And that's where we find issues about conceived imbalances of power --
> does the child say yes because that's what the child wants or because
> the child believe he or she must? Issues of differences in
> understanding -- can a child who does not understand what an orgasm is
> have enough knowledge to consent to practice oral sex? All around to
> differences in the way adults think as opposed to the way that
> children think, depending upon their developmental level. To a kid,
> the thrill they get from mooning you might be enough "sex" for them,
> though it is not likely to be enough for an adult.
And forcing a child would still be an offense. We need to be teaching
children to make decisions about sex for themselves (because they are doing
it, anyway, but without the knowledge that they need). With that education
they CAN make those decisions. And they CAN actually learn to say no. AND
the can actually learn to say yes, if THAT is what they want.
> >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.
> >
> >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.
>
> And that's why I maintain so steadfastly that it is irresponsible for
> any adult to place a child at that risk, especially a child they claim
> to love.
>
> -- 4s00th@hushmail.com
>
> If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
> (without showing your email addy)
> unless you ask me not to.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|