I'd have to push "society" or "culture" at that point.

Post #37,342 by Brandioch 5/3/02 12:01:02 PM Reply	I'd have to push "society" or "culture" at that point. "Childhood" is a fairly recent invention. If society doesn't have the extended version we have now, then earlier marriages are "normal" within that society. But that doesn't mean that they produce the healthiest (psychologically) individuals. But it does mean that they have a large support group of people with the exact same experiences to help them.
Post #37,352 by Mike 5/3/02 1:11:03 PM Reply	Good point .....a reply and some thoughts "But it does mean that they have a large support group of people with the exact same experiences to help them." I think that's an excellent point. ANY kind of behaviour which causes a person to be taken far out of the 'norms' for that culture could (arguably) suffer some trauma from it. The rest doesn't apply to your post per se..... My main point was that I think (based on purely personal experience) that its unlikley that trauma was experienced......at least until they were told that this should be the case. I DISTINCTLY remember praying that I wouldn't die before I got to have sex. I would hate this thread to disintegrate into a chorus of condemnation for paedophiles.......I think (I hope) that we all agree that sexuality involving innocent/naive children is wrong. I think we would all agree also that there are many children who are not so naive and innocent once they enter adolescence. The question is what (if anything) to do about it. The world is not quite so uniform as we often like to believe. The age of consent in America is 14-18 depending on which State you live in and depending on whether the partner is a peer. England sets the age at 16. Spain sets the age at 13. So.......its not black and white......even amongst those who put specific laws in place. Trying to achieve a "sexless" world among adolescents results in some severe problems. Specifically....you end up with vacuums in information.....you have experimentation being conducted in a more "renegade" fashion than it ought to be.......mixed messages emerge about when its okay to say okay. The message gets out among the boys that this is something which they really SHOULD be doing. Also...because of the relative lack of structure in sex education (or exploration in todays society).......voids appear into which your common-or-garden pervert can rush in and exploit naivite. A big problem is that when children mix they are maturing at very different stages. You get situations where a very sexually active 14 year old is "hitting" on peers who are not yet ready. An adolescent can be "awakened" to things by an adult and then expect to have those experiences with their peers. I think one of the things we often fail to teach our children is that they need to respect the fact that some of their peers may still be children...and its not a bad thing (and yes some adults need to understand this too). I think the attempt to pursue the sexless world......is fraught with problems. We have an "official" position and a separate realist's acknowledgement that it is in many cases just fiction. Hypothetical mind game: Imagine if we had goverment run "sex schools". These are staffed with attractive people. An adolescent gets to visit these places a specified number of times when they and their parents feel the time is right. In these places, the adolescent gets instruction on how to use birth control and (if they want to) gets to experience sex for the first time with the instructor of their own choosing. In other words...sex education.....is "hands on" (ahem). They are also warned about the dangers which are out there. The REAL goal is that the individual is awarded a licence. This would be a "licence to give consent". What we would end up with is a population of young adolescents SOME of whom are licenced and some of whom are not. The law would be written such that any sexual activity without licence is illegal for all parties. Would this better than what we have today? And why? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,355 by Brandioch 5/3/02 1:27:45 PM Reply	A simple solution. #1. Children mature at different rates. #2. There is no means to verify whether a child is "mature" or not. #3. Check #2 again with the understanding that the adult involved wants to fuck said child. #4. I'll comment on the emotional health of an adult who wants to have sex with a child when sex with another adult would be considered "healthier". In need of treatment. #5. Now, whether said child is mature, said child will be engaging in intimate relations with a "disturbed" adult. Want an example? Mary Kay. The chick is NOT "healthy". Which leaves me with the solution. Whatever the age of consent is, it applies to boys AND girls. Whether they have hormonal issues or fantasies or are attracted to cute adults. Whether it be "traumatic" will depend upon too many unknowns and unknowables. Just don't do it. If an adult does do it. S/He will be treated as a predator. Or, at best, in need of some SERIOUS psychological treatment. What children want is NOT always what is best for them. And no child ever died or suffered damage from lack of sex. Err on the side of less damage.
Post #37,383 by Mike 5/3/02 5:35:30 PM Reply	Just say no - yeah right! <sarcasm on> That should work for kids who do drugs too. <sarcasm off> My God we need you as a school advisor. What is it your are fond of saying about simple solutions and complex problems? >>"Whatever the age of consent is, it applies to boys AND girls. Whether they >>have hormonal issues or fantasies or are attracted to cute adults." Sooooo.....sex between a 60 year old man and a 13 year old girl is okay..... provided it happens in Spain. Is that it? Sex between 14 year olds is okay provided you are in South Carolina? Your argument is not very sophisticated (which possibly stems from a desire to rush to what you perceive to be the moral high ground) and it is of very little use in the real world. Our adolescents ARE having sex. Telling them to say "no" DOES NOT WORK. Great in theory. Horrible in practice. Just before you go prattling on about how disgusting paedophiles are... forget it.....its NOT about that. Get with the program. This is about how we are so oppressed and taboo stricken about the whole thing that we WANT to find evidence of trauma. "Surely there has to be some trauma... because sex is a bad dirty thing right? Even amongst boys dammit. And they may deny that they were traumatized but we know they must have been." Look......I don't know about you and I won't speak for others.....but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I would not have been traumatized. That's my main point. You say you would have been?.......fine. I think a lot more trauma occurs because we leave our children ignorant of things they need to know about. That's what I'm trying to highlight in the scenario. Our existing situation is pitiful. I'm not sure how it would be worse in my scenario.....and you definitely didn't say so. You are (I think) automatically concluding that illegal sex would be occurring in my scenario. Why do you jump to this conclusion? Because that's what you want to argue against. If the parents have a veto.....and if the government is administering the program......isn't illegal activity going to get filtered? Just for the record.....adolescence begins with the onset of physiologically normal puberty and ends when an adult identity and behavior are accepted. This period of development corresponds roughly to the period between the ages of 12 and 19 years. You don't stop being an adolescent when you reach the age of consent. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,387 by Ashton 5/3/02 5:51:38 PM Reply	Maybe we are agreeing that, the 'problem' is as much about the 'arrested maturity' (sexually? emotionally?) of our milieu - as it is about defining any batch of new rules / thinking up some way to enforce same (!) In my below reply to Imric, I tried to suggest that a misuse of the idea of 'trauma' has occurred in this thread. Maybe you won't agree. Still and all, my experience teaches that there exists a quite large diversity in both appetite.. and the age of onset of that. No LCD Rulez are ever apt to address this facet - for to leave new loopholes would be to.. invite further predation; this in a society Based upon the OKness of Wealth-predation - now institutionalized. That IMhO IS the 'milieu': OK one form of homo-sap predation and, the Idea is implanted. ie I see no Statutory remedy remotely workable - within a society in which many never grow beyond adolescence, however much their suits eventually cost. Ashton
Post #37,448 by Mike 5/4/02 2:18:21 AM Reply	Good thoughts >>ie I see no Statutory remedy remotely workable - within a society in which >>many never grow beyond adolescence, however much their suits eventually cost. I like this a lot. The one thing I would say is that that education and enlightenment can be powerful tools aginst ignorance and naivete. But...awwww fuck.... I hate tautology at the best of times. Now there some here who SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO want to hear that this = old men fucking children. To this I have to things to say a) I'm not old b) Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,453 by Ashton 5/4/02 3:02:36 AM Reply	Will choose aquatic ceremony over - purchased legislators.
Post #37,463 by CRConrad 5/4/02 7:04:03 AM Reply	OK, I'll take your bait - clarify, please. Mike: Now there some here who SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO want to hear that this = old men fucking children. To this I have t[w]o things to say a) I'm not old b) Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony Ah... So "b)" is NOT "I don't want to fuck children"? And I don't give a fuck if this is intentional baiting and you think you've "won", and I "lost", something by getting me to ask this -- just answer, anyway. You can crow over your "victory" in a separate paragraph. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #37,482 by Mike 5/4/02 9:56:35 AM 5/4/02 12:05:37 PM Reply	Re: OK, I'll take your bait - clarify, please. Sorry.....no bait intended they're just quotes from Monty Python And The Holy Grail. Obscure I know.....should have been clearer. ARTHUR and PATSY riding. They stop and look. We see a castle in the distance, and before it a PEASANT is working away on his knees trying to dig up the earth with his bare hands and a twig. ARTHUR and PATSY ride up, and stop before the PEASANT ARTHUR Old woman! DENNIS Man! ARTHUR Man. I'm sorry. Old man, What knight lives in that castle over there? DENNIS I'm thirty-seven. ARTHUR What? DENNIS: I'm thirty-seven ... I'm not old. ARTHUR: Well - I can't just say: "Hey, Man!' DENNIS Well you could say: "Dennis" ARTHUR I didn't know you were called Dennis. DENNIS You didn't bother to find out, did you? ARTHUR I've said I'm sorry about the old woman, but from the behind you looked ... DENNIS What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior ... ARTHUR Well ... I AM king. DENNIS Oh, very nice. King, eh! I expect you've got a palace and fine clothes and courtiers and plenty of food. And how d'you get that? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the social and economic differences in our society! If there's EVER going to be any progress ... An OLD WOMAN appears. OLD WOMAN Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here ... Oh! how d'you do? ARTHUR How d'you do, good lady ... I am Arthur, King of the Britons ... can you tell me who lives in that castle? OLD WOMAN King of the WHO? ARTHUR The Britons. OLD WOMAN Who are the Britons? ARTHUR All of us are ... we are all Britons. DENNIS winks at the OLD WOMAN. ... and I am your king .... OLD WOMAN Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective ... DENNIS You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes ... OLD WOMAN There you are, bringing class into it again ... DENNIS That's what it's all about ... If only - ARTHUR Please, please good people. I am in haste. What knight lives in that castle? OLD WOMAN No one live there. ARTHUR Well, who is your lord? OLD WOMAN We don't have a lord. ARTHUR What? DENNIS I told you, We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. ARTHUR Yes. DENNIS ... But all the decisions of that officer ... ARTHUR Yes, I see. DENNIS ... must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs. ARTHUR Be quiet! DENNIS ... but a two-thirds majority ... ARTHUR Be quiet! I order you to shut up. OLD WOMAN Order, eh -- who does he think he is? ARTHUR I am your king! OLD WOMAN Well, I didn't vote for you. ARTHUR You don't vote for kings. OLD WOMAN Well, how did you become king, then? ARTHUR The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify by Divine Providence ... that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur ... That is why I am your king! \| \| OLD WOMAN \| Is Frank in? He'd be able to deal with this one. \| DENNIS Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. ARTHUR Be quiet! DENNIS You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! ARTHUR Shut up! DENNIS I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away! ARTHUR (Grabbing him by the collar) Shut up, will you. Shut up! DENNIS Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system. ARTHUR Shut up! PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching. DENNIS (calling) Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I'm being repressed! ARTHUR (aware that people are now coming out and watching) Bloody peasant! (pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off) DENNIS Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away. ARTHUR Come on, patsy. They ride off. DENNIS (in the background as we PULL OUT) did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've been on about ... -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 4, 2002, 12:05:37 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,395 by Brandioch 5/3/02 7:11:04 PM Reply	Just say "prosecute". Sooooo.....sex between a 60 year old man and a 13 year old girl is okay..... provided it happens in Spain. Is that it? "okay" or "legal"? You will notice that I did not address what the age of consent should be, only that it should apply equally to boys as well as girls. Sex between 14 year olds is okay provided you are in South Carolina? "okay" or "legal"? Again, I haven't stated what I feel the age of consent should be, just that it be applied to boys as well as girls. Your argument is not very sophisticated (which possibly stems from a desire to rush to what you perceive to be the moral high ground) and it is of very little use in the real world. Whatever. Our adolescents ARE having sex. Telling them to say "no" DOES NOT WORK. Great in theory. Horrible in practice. Hmmmm, and here I thought the discussion was about adult/child sex. Yet you're using two 14yo's as an example. Whatever. Just before you go prattling on about how disgusting paedophiles are... forget it.....its NOT about that. Get with the program. But it >IS< about adult/child sex, right? This is about how we are so oppressed and taboo stricken about the whole thing that we WANT to find evidence of trauma. Maybe that is what it is about for you. I'll use Mary Kay as my example. "Surely there has to be some trauma... because sex is a bad dirty thing right? Even amongst boys dammit. And they may deny that they were traumatized but we know they must have been." Please check your fantasies about me at the door. Thank you. In case that wasn't clear enough for you, I'll use smaller words. You are wrong. Look......I don't know about you and I won't speak for others.....but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I would not have been traumatized. Whatever. Again, I'll use Mary Kay as my example. That's my main point. You say you would have been?.......fine. Okay, there's something called "reading with comprehension" with which you seem to be unfamiliar. I say you seem to be unfamiliar with it because, once again, you have assigned a statement or position to me that I have NOT said/claimed. #1. It is about adult/child sex. Not about two 14yo's. #2. "okay" and "legal" are NOT the same. #3. I did NOT say that >I< would be traumatized. I think a lot more trauma occurs because we leave our children ignorant of things they need to know about. That's what I'm trying to highlight in the scenario. Our existing situation is pitiful. I'm not sure how it would be worse in my scenario.....and you definitely didn't say so. Strange, you've managed to completely miss what I posted. #1. Children mature at different rates. #2. There is no test to see whether a child is "ready" to have sex. #3. The adult desiring to fuck the child is NOT a reliable judge of said child's maturity level. and so on. You are (I think) automatically concluding that illegal sex would be occurring in my scenario. We >ARE< still talking about adult/child sex, right? Why do you jump to this conclusion? Because that's what you want to argue against. If the parents have a veto.....and if the government is administering the program......isn't illegal activity going to get filtered? Okay, are we still talking about adult/child sex? Just for the record.....adolescence begins with the onset of physiologically normal puberty and ends when an adult identity and behavior are accepted. But how is that measured/tested? This period of development corresponds roughly to the period between the ages of 12 and 19 years. You don't stop being an adolescent when you reach the age of consent. Again, is there any test or measurement to determine where each individual child is in that continuum? If not, then setting a "legal" age of consent is up to the society that the child/adult inhabit. And I'm saying that that age limit should apply to boy and girls.
Post #37,403 by Mike 5/3/02 7:55:24 PM Reply	Please start your own thread using words fuck and children I promise I'll join and tell you my opinions. In the meantime, I told you what this one was about. If you REALLY want to talk about children getting fucked start your own thread. One more time with feeling (and fucking VERBATIM)...... Just before you go prattling on about how disgusting paedophiles are... forget it.....its NOT about that. Get with the program. This is about how we are so oppressed and taboo stricken about the whole thing that we WANT to find evidence of trauma. "Surely there has to be some trauma... because sex is a bad dirty thing right? Even amongst boys dammit. And they may deny that they were traumatized but we know they must have been." Look......I don't know about you and I won't speak for others.....but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I would not have been traumatized. That's my main point. You say you would have been?.......fine. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,405 by Brandioch 5/3/02 8:06:55 PM Reply	What the fuck? If you REALLY want to talk about children getting fucked start your own thread. Hmmm, let me quote from the original post at the top of this thread. Dr Kim Etherington, of the University of Bristol, says boys who have had sex with older women can struggle to accept that they have been abused. So, "sex" in this context is not the same as "fucking"? Or "boy" is not "male child"? The plural of "child" is not "children"? So we aren't talking about boys having sex with women? Yes, this is so much clearer to me now. Thank you.
Post #37,441 by Mike 5/4/02 1:48:37 AM 5/4/02 1:51:09 AM Reply	As always ..... As always you are missing EXACTLY what it is the other person is trying to say. As always you are trying to argue argainst something which the other person is not defending. As always you are first thinking "what is the moral high ground here" instead of what makes the most sense. >>Dr Kim Etherington, of the University of Bristol, says boys who have had sex >>with older women can struggle to accept that they have been abused. >>So, "sex" in this context is not the same as "fucking"? Nope, got that wrong...its actually exactly the same thing. Or "boy" is not "male child"? >> Bingo. Fucking BINGO. I can't FUCKING BELIEVE how long its takes you to get the points which others make. But today yields a special moment of triumph for the collective. What I am saying IS <hold breath> "when others considered me a "boy" or "male child" I was in fact an extremely proactive and very willing sexual partner, who functioned much as an 18 year old did". What is WRONG with that?????????????????????? -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 4, 2002, 01:51:09 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,467 by CRConrad 5/4/02 7:07:20 AM Reply	As always, people think their experience = How it IS. What I am saying IS <hold breath> "when others considered me a "boy" or "male child" I was in fact an extremely proactive and very willing sexual partner, who functioned much as an 18 year old did". Bully for you! What do I know, maybe you even got to fulfill the fantasy of Doing It With Miss Teacher... But WTF does that have to do with anything? What is WRONG with that?????????????????????? Nothing -- except your implicit assumption that your experience is the general rule. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #37,472 by Brandioch 5/4/02 8:50:21 AM Reply	Huzzzaaaa! Huzzzaaa! Huzzzaaa! Nothing -- except your implicit assumption that your experience is the general rule. Well I'm glad that SOMEONE understands it. I don't CARE what any SINGLE individual was ready for/not ready for/what the fuck ever! What I'm looking at are the CRITERIA for the GENERAL CASE. From Mike's post: What I am saying IS <hold breath> "when others considered me a "boy" or "male child" I was in fact an extremely proactive and very willing sexual partner, who functioned much as an 18 year old did". Now, to clarify this to everyone.... Mike, how OLD were you in the above statement? 17? 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? THEN, is it your position that I should be able to fuck a girl of that same age? If not, why?
Post #37,478 by Mike 5/4/02 9:40:48 AM Reply	From my first post. "Has anybody ever heard of young men being "traumatized" as a result of having consensual sex with an older woman?" -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,483 by Another Scott 5/4/02 9:58:56 AM Reply	Link. [link\|http://members.iquest.net/~dkoons/news.html\|Here]'s a story from APBNews from 2000. [...] Targets of seduction Lanning said that cases involving teenage boys who have been seduced are among the most difficult for investigators. "There is no human being on the face of the earth who is easier to seduce into sexual activity [than] an adolescent boy, because they are aggressively interested in sex," Lanning said. "[Boys are] exploring their sexuality, are easily aroused, are sexually naive and are rebelling against society," he said. Boys who might be willing to report a violent assault may also be unwilling to turn in an adult, male or female, who showed interest in them -- even if the interest included sex. When the adult is a woman, the line between experimentation and exploitation is blurred for many -- including the boys themselves. Prey become predators "What makes a situation one of sexual abuse is that its purpose is to make the predator feel good, it is accomplished by manipulation, and the adult has some sense of the inappropriateness and impact of the behavior which the child would not have," Faller said. Faller added that she has worked with men who were seduced by older women as adolescents and later became sexual predators, even victimizing animals. "This is their way of gaining sexual mastery that they may not have had in an encounter with an adult female," she said. Davidson said that "there's real trauma whether the perpetrator is male or female. No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful about a 16-year-old boy being in a relationship with a 30-year-old." Mark F. Schwartz, Ph.D., director of the Masters and Johnson Clinic in St. Louis, agrees that sexual initiation by an older woman can be disturbing. "Some men are traumatized as a result of their first sexual experience not being an idealized encounter, and they regard it as a violation," he said. [...] Different motives Patricia Davin, Ph.D., a marriage and family therapist in Carson City, Nev., said little is known about female sex offenders. Davin is a co-author of the book Female Sexual Abusers: Three Views, published in 1999 by The Safer Society Foundation. "These women aren't sexually attracted to the boys, they are emotionally attracted to them," said Davin, whose book is based on interviews with 76 women in prison for sex crimes. "This is a wish for intimacy; it's about being wanted, loved and validated. Some [of the] women are in very vulnerable situations in their lives and have low self-esteem when these events happen." Schwartz said that most female sex offenders are victims of abuse, re-enacting their own experience. "They may be psychologically unstable and may have borderline personality disorders or psychoses -- which means they are more treatable," he added. Davin agrees that women "do well in treatment," but she has one caution. "It's too early to tell whether the recidivism rate would be lower in women than in men." For what it's worth. Cheers, Scott.
Post #37,489 by Mike 5/4/02 11:51:52 AM Reply	Thanks Some of the statements appear to be just plain false though. Extract: Davidson said that "there's real trauma whether the perpetrator is male or female. No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful about a 16-year-old boy being in a relationship with a 30-year-old." I'm (quite seriously) not entirely sure this is a fact. See the links I provide here [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37487\| Link] -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,493 by Brandioch 5/4/02 2:01:15 PM Reply	I think I see a thread there. Davidson said that "there's real trauma whether the perpetrator is male or female. No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful about a 16-year-old boy being in a relationship with a 30-year-old." I'm (quite seriously) not entirely sure this is a fact. Hmmm, so a 16 year old boy with a 30 year old man would not be traumatic? I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you won't reply to that question. I think I understand your limitations now.
Post #37,497 by Mike 5/4/02 2:52:51 PM Reply	Your inability to understand and comprehend ........ is your limitation. "No one in this field will tell you......" and yet there definitely appear to be people in the field who will. So.......on a totally objective basis alone.......the person is making a claim which is patently false. Period. [You see what you want to see. You hear what you want to hear. Your attempt to drag the debate into the realm of homosexuality is a pitiful attempt to enlist the troops of stigma and shame] >>Hmmm, so a 16 year old boy with a 30 year old man would not be traumatic? >>I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you won't reply to that question. Wrong again! How about that? 1) Traumatic?.........quite possibly.....largely due to the homophobic nature of western societies. Put your scenario in a culture where homosexuality is a norm......and all you've got left is disparate ages. 2) This would be completely legal in England (where I happen to come from) so your legal aspect goes out the fucking window sunshine. 3) Its very easy easy to see the potential for minipulation between 16 and 30 year old men, women and donkeys. Should there be a presumption of it? Is it more likely than a relationship between a 16 and 18 year old? Should the 30 year old be punished for it? (see point 2 above). -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,500 by Brandioch 5/4/02 4:06:01 PM Reply	Just establishing your position. So it is "okay" for you (when a teenager) to want to fuck an older woman. (And I will continue to use the word "fuck" because that is the best word to describe the act that I can think of) But it MIGHT be "traumatic" for a boy teenager to have sex with a man. Simply put, you're are arguing in support of your adolescent sexual fantasy. That is why you don't like when I extrapolate your claims to girls fucking men. That is why you cannot claim that a boy fucking a man would be "okay". This is all about >YOU< and >YOUR< sexual fantasy. That's why you kept going on about how >YOU< would not be "traumatized" by fucking a woman when you were a child. And I don't give a rat's ass what >YOUR< sexual fantasy is. The only time I get involved is when you try to ACT on that fantasy. Now, you can quote all kinds of "experts" on whether it is "traumatic" or not. I'll stick with a verifiable example. Mary Kay Letourneau The chick is NOT stable. Getting into any kind of relationship with a chick like that, when you're a teenager, is most likely to have emotional impact. "Trauma"? That depends upon how you define "trauma". And that chick is a good example of the kind of fucked up individual who WANTS to fuck children. Whether >YOU< would be "traumatized" by >YOUR< fantasy coming true is irrelevant. Unless you are claiming that you are an example of the general rule. In which case, adults fucking children is "okay" because YOU say it would be "okay" for >YOU<. And that >IS< what this thread is about. Whether >YOU< realize that or not. That is why there were examples of 8 yo's with children. That is why the difference in age of consent was shown. 3) Its very easy easy to see the potential for minipulation between 16 and 30 year old men, women and donkeys. Should there be a presumption of it? Cute. You said "donkeys". I've noticed you try to do shit like that when you've run out of excuses. Should there be an assumption? Yes. Is that simple enough for you? And the REASON there should be such an assumption is that there is NO WAY TO VERIFY THAT SUCH IS NOT THE CASE. Include THAT with the fact that there is NO WAY TO SHOW THAT THE CHILD IS READY and you'll see why adults should NOT be allowed to fuck children. Oh. I said "adults...fuck....children". You're going to go spaz on that. Just one more indicator that you're focusing on >YOUR< sexual fantasy rather than the situation. You're viewing it in terms of "Mike getting laid by Mrs. Robinson". Is it more likely than a relationship between a 16 and 18 year old? yes. The adult has had more time to gain experience in manipulation. Why do you even have to ask that? Should the 30 year old be punished for it? (see point 2 above). Okay, is it possible that you have missed my previous posts? Perchance you missed this one? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37395\|Just say "prosecute".] Try reading that again and tell me I haven't made my position clear enough. Now, your reference to "point 2 above" is: 2) This would be completely legal in England (where I happen to come from) so your legal aspect goes out the fucking window sunshine. You have a little trouble with formating. It seems that you are saying a 30 year old man can fuck a 16 year old boy in England. Are you in England? Are you in England? Are you in England? "Legal" depends upon the country/state/city you are in. Claiming that something is "legal" in ANOTHER COUNTRY is, once again, evidence that you are trying to support your own sexual fantasy. Who CARES what is legal in England UNLESS YOU ARE IN ENGLAND?
Post #37,506 by Mike 5/4/02 4:37:41 PM Reply	I see we have entered the zone where you start completely ignoring anything I write when it has credence. Just firing away with your unsophisticated questioning isn't going much further. Do you understand that you were profoundly wrong >>"No one in this field will tell you......" >>and yet there definitely appear to be people in the field who will. >>So.......on a totally objective basis alone.......the person >>is making a claim which is patently false. Period. Answer this and I'll tell you why England is relevant LATER. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,509 by Brandioch 5/4/02 5:34:16 PM Reply	I quoted you quoting something that "Another Scott" quoted. To quote you, again: >>"No one in this field will tell you......" >>and yet there definitely appear to be people in the field who will. >>So.......on a totally objective basis alone.......the person >>is making a claim which is patently false. Period. Now, that quote, from you, does NOT appear in my post that you are replying to. Nor did you answer any of the questions I asked in that post. Whatever. #1. Link. - (Another Scott) #2. Thanks - (Mike) #3. I think I see a thread there. - (Brandioch) #4. Your inability to understand and comprehend ........ - (Mike) #5. Just establishing your position. - (Brandioch) #6. I see - (Mike) Now, the quote is FIRST presented in #1. You reply to that in #2 with links. [link\|http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/17/adult-child-sex.htm\|Link] [link\|http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/02232946.htm\|Link] Both links discuss the same book/author. You have a problem with the statement: No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful about a 16-year-old boy being in a relationship with a 30-year-old To support this statement I will reference your post: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37489\|Here] Some of the statements appear to be just plain false though. Extract: Davidson said that "there's real trauma whether the perpetrator is male or female. No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful about a 16-year-old boy being in a relationship with a 30-year-old." I'm (quite seriously) not entirely sure this is a fact. Yet the closest statement I can find in the articles you referenced say: Parents and others may gasp at the concept, especially in the current climate of scandal over sexual abuse by priests. But some serious researchers and academics want to review the term "child sexual abuse," preferring a more neutral term such as "adult-child sex." They do not say coerced sex is acceptable. Rather, they debate questions such as whether a 25-year-old man should be prosecuted for statutory rape if he has sex with his eager 17-year-old girlfriend. Laws vary by state. I notice that no names are mentioned. So, as far as this supporting your position that some researchers in that field DO say it is okay, no names and no comments are available. This is NOT supporting your statement. Which brings us to #3. My post. In which I ask you: Hmmm, so a 16 year old boy with a 30 year old man would not be traumatic? In #4, you reply with the same statement you made in #2. You also state: [You see what you want to see. You hear what you want to hear. Your attempt to drag the debate into the realm of homosexuality is a pitiful attempt to enlist the troops of stigma and shame] Then you reply: #1. I >MIGHT< be traumatic. #2. It would be legal in England. #3. Manipulation might be present. Also: Should there be a presumption of it? Is it more likely than a relationship between a 16 and 18 year old? Should the 30 year old be punished for it? (see point 2 above). (formatting added) Which brings us to #5. Again, a post from me. So it is "okay" for you (when a teenager) to want to fuck an older woman. But it MIGHT be "traumatic" for a boy teenager to have sex with a man. Which is why I stated that you were arguing in support of your adolescent sexual fantasy. Simply stated, >YOU< would be "okay" with getting laid, as a teenager, by an older woman... -but- There exists the possiblity of "trauma" if it happened with others. You are arguing for your specific case. But you didn't fuck the old lady. Therefore, there is no way to determine whether you WOULD have been "traumatized" by the event or not. All that you are offering is your OPINION of what WOULD have happened from your FANTASY. Which brings us to your previous post: I see we have entered the zone where you start completely ignoring anything I write when it has credence. And yet I have just quoted back to you, with your references, your previous posts. Now you have entered the phase where you will not read what I' posting, but just keep repeating your earlier position. Just firing away with your unsophisticated questioning isn't going much further. "Unsophisticated" to you. I have established that you are expressing an OPINION as if it were a FACT. Do you understand that you were profoundly wrong[sic] No. >>"No one in this field will tell you......" >>and yet there definitely appear to be people in the fieldwho will. >>So.......on a totally objective basis alone.......the person >>is making a claim which is patently false. Period. You mis-read your own reference. No one was quoted as saying that it would NOT harm the child. If you believe this to be so, provide a quote and a name. And quoting someone saying that other people have suggested that it might be so is NOT sufficient. Answer this and I'll tell you why England is relevant LATER. Answer WHAT? The ONLY question you 'asked' was: Do you understand that you were profoundly wrong Well, to fulfill ALL your requests: No, I do NOT understand that I was profoundly wrong. Moreso, I do not believe that I was wrong in any way shape or form. In fact, I still believe that YOU are wrong. Well, "wrong" might not be the correct word. Rather, it seems that EVERYONE else is discussing whether adult/child fucking is ever "okay" and you are rambling on about your sexual fantasy. Supporting link: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37403\|Please start your own thread using words fuck and children]
Post #37,515 by Mike 5/4/02 6:29:22 PM 5/4/02 6:45:38 PM Reply	And a quote is errrm....leading..to errrm....yeah.... [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37489\| Link1] Thanks -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of the statements appear to be just plain false though. Extract: Davidson said that "there's real trauma whether the perpetrator is male or female. No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful about a 16-year-old boy being in a relationship with a 30-year-old." I'm (quite seriously) not entirely sure this is a fact. Because........in one of the articles it states David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, one of the nation's foremost researchers on the sexual abuse of children. "That is the good news." One question now, he says, is determining if some youngsters are more mature and "able to consent to sexual relationships with older partners." So the Davidson statement is blatantly incorrect. You say: I notice that no names are mentioned. So, as far as this supporting your position that some researchers in that field DO say it is okay, no names and no comments are available. This is NOT supporting your statement. David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire.....a name and an address. You want a telephone number now don't you? Go back and read 'em again. >>I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you won't reply to that question. You were pretty much missed the mark with that one too. Oh but...then....I didn't use the word "okay" ..... which has got to be one of the most fucking nebulous words to be used as a fulcrum of debate...don't you think? -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 4, 2002, 06:45:38 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,518 by Brandioch 5/4/02 6:55:58 PM Reply	It's called "reading with comprehension". You quote: "David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, one of the nation's foremost researchers on the sexual abuse of children. "That is the good news." One question now, he says, is determining if some youngsters are more mature and "able to consent to sexual relationships with older partners." Then you say: So the Davidson statement is blatantly incorrect. And here is the quote you wish to invalidate: Davidson said that "there's real trauma whether the perpetrator is male or female. No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful about a 16-year-old boy being in a relationship with a 30-year-old." sigh Why do >I< have to go through and explain this? Finkelhor NEVER stated that he had FOUND EVIDENCE that such was the case. Finkelhor stated that we should SEARCH for such evidence. One question now, he says, is determining if some youngsters are more mature and "able to consent to sexual relationships with older partners. Do you have trouble understanding that? Do you understand that he could determine that NONE of the youngsters were are more mature and "able to consent to sexual relationships with older partners." You were pretty much missed the mark with that one too. Oh but...then....I didn't use the word "okay" ..... which has got to be one of the most fucking nebulous words to be used as a fulcrum of debate...don't you think? No. I don't. I use it because it establishes >YOUR< position. Now, on to links. When you link to something, could you TRY to quote the applicable material, in a clear manner? The link is used to substantiate the quote and to verify context. I do not understand why you linked to this thread and then quoted whole posts from me.
Post #37,517 by Mike 5/4/02 6:42:23 PM Reply	Look.... I have told you what I think would have been the outcome for me. "But you don't know that for certain.....is hardly a ver clever rebuttal". I have asked for the experiences insights of others. I have supplied links to two separate and current articles which indicate that debate is very active on those topics. >>Which is why I stated that you were arguing in support of your adolescent >>sexual fantasy. This is moronic debate. My beliefs are my beliefs. I poured scorn on the fact that I might have been traumatized. You say...."oh but you don't know that....". Sorry dude....you can take it to the friggin' bank. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,519 by Brandioch 5/4/02 7:15:12 PM Reply	I see a bunny! I have told you what I think would have been the outcome for me. Yes. And that is an "opinion". It is also unsupportable. Therefore, it is useless. I have supplied links to two separate and current articles which indicate that debate is very active on those topics. You supplied links to two articles discussing the SAME BOOK. Said book has 4 pages devoted to inter-generational sex. If the debate was very active on said subject, I would expect to see more books, publications, whatever. After all, that >IS< how these academic debates are carried out. This is moronic debate. My beliefs are my beliefs. I poured scorn on the fact that I might have been traumatized. You say...."oh but you don't know that....". Sorry dude....you can take it to the friggin' bank. Your original post: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37289\|Has the world gone crazy?] Once again the state tells us whats good for us. Is this on the edge or what? The idea that I could have been abused at the age of 15 by a sexy school mistress is just absurd. So, you claimed that >YOU< would be "okay" with it. Given that, I attempted to discover what your criteria for adult/child fucking would be. And it has taken me this long to get you to comment on ONE specific instance (16/30 male/male). Has anybody ever heard of young men being "traumatized" as a result of having consensual sex with an older woman? And I believe that some material was referenced for this. Suffice to say that you made numerous comments in your original post and have evaded attempts to clarify your position. #1. WHEN is it "okay" (do NOT tell me when it is "legal") for a child to have sex with an adult. #2. Answer #1 without using "legal". Criteria. You have an opinion that we're to uptight about sex, yet you're so uptight that you get bent out of shape when you see the words "adult...child...fucking". What the fuck am I even trying for? I already KNOW what your response will be. It will boil down to "It's okay as long as it is between consenting individuals of the age of consent". Which will seem rather odd when you compare that to your first post about how you would be fine with sex with an older woman when you were under the age of consent. From the specific case to the general rule. But you're failing to make that progression. You still see the world as "everyone else" and "Mike". Deal with it.
Post #37,530 by Mike 5/4/02 9:54:48 PM Reply	Love you xoxo From one of your earlier posts But it >IS< about adult/child sex, right? Then you thrash away on a scenario between a 16 year old and 30 year old male. Hey ....YOU picked it. I tried to address it. Your scenario is LEGAL in many places. The societies that made these rules said to themselves....."know what we are not going to criminalise sex between males when it occurs at age 16 or higher." It doesn't mean that they think its a wonderful idea. It doesn't mean they even condone it....what they ARE saying is that at 16 a person is able to make their own decisions and give consent. They may make mistakes.....but we won't put people in jail as result of the mistakes they make. You picked a really shit scenario.....your fault not mine. I'm not going to argue your side of the debate for you. [Though God knows you need some help]. Now you want to point out that there is little connection between your scenario and my original assertion in my first post? >>Which will seem rather odd when you compare that to your first post about how >>you would be fine with sex with an older woman when you were under the age of >>consent. You intentionally drove the thread away from MY scenario and now you want to finger me as the person who got you there????????? You are a solid gold 24 carat sweetheart ya know? Fucking priceless. >>Suffice to say that you made numerous comments in your original post and have >>evaded attempts to clarify your position. Dude, I've jumped through friggin' hoops for ya like a circus poodle. >>#1. WHEN is it "okay" (do NOT tell me when it is "legal") for a child to have >>sex with an adult. >>#2. Answer #1 without using "legal". Answer: It is never "okay" for a child to have sex with an adult. When I was 15 I wasn't a child anymore. I assure you......I was not a child at 15. Tell me I was a child without using the word "legal". >>You supplied links to two articles discussing the SAME BOOK. Oh golly gosh...that means they cancel each other out right? Well, its a very recent publication and its generated a lot of debate and controversy. >>If the debate was very active on said subject, I would expect to see more >>books, publications, whatever. From the USA Today article "The controversy is engaging some researchers at top universities". I don't know what to tell you. I recommend you swing by the sociology section in your public library. It aint all on the web dude. >>You have an opinion that we're to[o] uptight about sex Oh God yeah that much is in NO doubt >>yet you're so uptight that you get bent out of shape when you see the words "adult...child...fucking" Oh no not at at all...I just think its a puerile source of tittilation for you and I think you get a boner every time you write it. >>Yes. And that is an "opinion". It is also unsupportable. Therefore, it is >>useless. Fucking eh......you're just batting a thousand tonight. Unsupportable...really? Lets do this, let's E-Mail 10 male friends and tell them they are fifteen years old. They are about to have sex with Miss America ...when she is 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25...etc. Lets see how high they let the age go before they would say....."no stop.... I think that might have traumatized me. Twenty four is way too old". Are 10 opinions worth anything? How about 1000 opinions? When does the "that's just you....and your opinion" cop out get shown up to be the bullshit that it is? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,546 by Brandioch 5/5/02 1:47:48 AM Reply	I know you do. Okay, I've cleaned up the formating a bit because you can't. I asked: #1. WHEN is it "okay" (do NOT tell me when it is "legal") for a child to have sex with an adult. #2. Answer #1 without using "legal". You reply: Answer: It is never "okay" for a child to have sex with an adult. Okay, that seems to contradict your original posting. When I was 15 I wasn't a child anymore. I assure you......I was not a child at 15. Tell me I was a child without using the word "legal". Actually, you were. I'm telling you now, you were a child at 15. From one of your earlier posts But it >IS< about adult/child sex, right? Then you thrash away on a scenario between a 16 year old and 30 year old male. And the reason I HAD to give you a SPECIFIC example was to ESTABLISH THE CRITERIA you were operating under that you WOULD NOT STATE. That you STILL have not stated. Okay, so you say it isn't okay for an adult to have sex with a child. But then you claim that, at 15, you weren't a child. So, does that mean that it is okay with you if a 15 year old has sex with an adult? Now, I'm not holding much hope for you being able to answer that. The reason for this is the number of posts it took to get you to say that 16 & 30 is "okay" (as long as it doesn't break any laws). That is why, more than ONCE I have posted a list of ages for you to okay/not-okay. And you STILL have not been able to answer that. The best you can do so far is to say that FOR YOU, at 15, sex with an adult was okay. You won't say that for EVERYONE (as a general rule) it is okay. Just for you. So, it begins again. Me asking if it is okay for a 15yo to fuck a 29yo. And you evading the question as much as you can. You intentionally drove the thread away from MY scenario and now you want to finger me as the person who got you there????????? You are a solid gold 24 carat sweetheart ya know? Fucking priceless. Again, what I have done is to establish CRITERIA from your statements because you are UNABLE to CLEARLY state your criteria. You keep refering to >YOU<. That >YOU< were ready. That >YOU< would not be traumatized. It's always about >YOU<. Well, the fact of the matter is that >YOU< do NOT >KNOW< that you were ready or would not be traumatized because it DID NOT HAPPEN. All >YOU< have is >YOUR< opinion about >YOU<. Do I have to tell you what an OPINION about what MIGHT have happened to a SINGLE person is worth? yet you're so uptight that you get bent out of shape when you see the words "adult...child...fucking" Oh no not at at all...I just think its a puerile source of tittilation for you and I think you get a boner every time you write it. Get with the program. The fact is that YOU are the one objecting to it. You claim that YOU are objecting to it because YOU >THINK< that it is tittilating to >ME<. I think that pretty much defines your problem. Fucking eh......you're just batting a thousand tonight. Unsupportable...really? Yes. Unsupportable. Really. Did you not understand my statement? Lets do this, let's E-Mail 10 male friends and tell them they are fifteen years old. They are about to have sex with Miss America ...when she is 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25...etc. Lets see how high they let the age go before they would say....."no stop.... I think that might have traumatized me. Twenty four is way too old". You know, formatting is NOT a sin. Do you even READ your posts? Now, to illustrate how your survey is flawed. Get 100 children together (ages 8 - 10). Offer to let them eat cakes and pies and candy for every meal. As much as they want. See how many of them accept. Now, do you care to tell me that this is a good diet for them? You see, once again you are dealing only in your FANTASY. Do you even know WHO MARY KAY LETOURNEAU is? Fantasy IS NOT reality. Your FANTASY is NOT based in REALITY. Look at guys who have gone through that. Like I've said before, your OPINION is worthless. Try to substantiate it. And getting MORE OPINIONS is not substantiating it. To put it to you bluntly, you have not demonstrated adult-like understanding in this discussion. I do not think you have matured sufficiently. That means that your current (immature) opinion of your previous maturity level is going to be incorrect. #1. Opinions are NOT facts. #2. Fantasies are NOT reality. #3. NEITHER of those will substantiate a position. #4. A mature individual would know this.
Post #37,555 by Mike 5/5/02 9:24:34 AM Reply	Re: I know you do. >>You keep refering to >YOU<. >>That >YOU< were ready. >>That >YOU< would not be >>traumatized. >>It's always about >YOU<. I've talked about my own situation I've asked the group for their own stories (and they are appearing...if you would read) I've mentioned other countries. I've mentioned other states. I've mentioned articles where leading researchers are asking similar questions. Seems like you are wrong to me. <shrug> >>And getting MORE OPINIONS is not substantiating it. This is one of the oddest things you have ever said. I'm suggesting that we ask 1000 men from our group whether they think they would have wanted to.... and whether they think it would have been harmful. You're saying that you are going to override what they say.... because........you know better? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,561 by Brandioch 5/5/02 11:55:50 AM Reply	Bzzzztttt! Thanks for playing. You quote me: >>You keep refering to >YOU<. >>That >YOU< were ready. >>That >YOU< would not be >>traumatized. >>It's always about >YOU<. Then you say: I've talked about my own situation Yes. That is what I said in the part that you quoted. I said you were talking about you. >YOU< were talking about >YOU<. Did you miss where I said that? I've mentioned other countries. Yes you did. And I explained why what happens in other countries is not relevant. That was the whole point of the "okay" vs "legal" bit that took so long to hammer through your head. (and it seems as if it STILL hasn't gotten through). I've mentioned other states. Yes you did. See my reply to the preceeding quote. "okay" vs "legal". I've mentioned articles where leading researchers are asking similar questions. And now you retreat to outright LIES. Go ahead, POST THE NAME of any of the "leading researchers" who are "asking similar questions". Since you've "mentioned articles" by them, you should NOT have a problem doing that, should you? Seems like you are wrong to me. <shrug> Whatever. We'll see when you can post any NAMES from those "leading researchers". And because I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO TRY IT...... Posting the name of someone who says that other, un-named, people are asking such questions is NOT posting the name of someone who is asking such questions. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Post #37,578 by Mike 5/5/02 5:05:57 PM Reply	No problem dude :-) >>And now you retreat to outright LIES. >>Go ahead, POST THE NAME of any of the "leading researchers" who are "asking >>similar questions". David Finkelhor, University of New Hampshire Floyd M. Martinson, Professor of Sociology Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota >>And I explained why what happens in other countries is not relevant. How can it not be relevant if that's where my encounter as a 15 year old would have occurred? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,591 by Brandioch 5/5/02 8:10:13 PM Reply	More lies from you? David Finkelhor, University of New Hampshire Hmmm, you know, I just can't seem to find a quote from him saying that. Not that this proves that he didn't say that. Just that there's no evidence that he said that. Floyd M. Martinson, Professor of Sociology Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota Again, the statements you seem to believe he said just don't seem to be available anywhere. Again, this is not prooof that he didn't say those things. Just that they cannot be found anywhere. >>And I explained why what happens in other countries is not relevant. How can it not be relevant if that's where my encounter as a 15 year old would have occurred? Are you REALLY that STUPID? Or is this some idiotic ploy on your part to waste my time? Okay, let me put it to you in VERY SIMPLE TERMS. At one time, slavery was LEGAL in the US. Did that make it "okay"? You see, "legal" != "okay" in all circumstances. You may remember that I have REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that I'm NOT asking if it is "legal". But that is where you KEEP RUNNING BACK TO. So, until you can demonstrate that you understand the difference between "okay" and "legal", this conversation is at an end. And is should be VERY easy as I have just given you the CLASSIC example of "legal" != "okay".
Post #37,662 by Mike 5/6/02 4:29:37 PM Reply	Re: More lies from you? >>Hmmm, you know, I just can't seem to find a quote from him saying that. >>Not that this proves that he didn't say that. Your ignorance about him (and possibly how to use a search engine) is your failing not mine. You should fight your ignorance. Go to Amazon.com and buy their books or go to the library and borrow them. >>Again, this is not prooof that he didn't say those things. Just that they >>cannot be found anywhere. Though it IS good evidence that you don't wish to look very hard. Didn't I already tell you that it aint all on the web? >>Are you REALLY that STUPID? Or is this some idiotic ploy on your part to >>waste my time? Okay, let me put it to you in VERY SIMPLE TERMS. >>At one time, slavery was LEGAL in the US. >>Did that make it "okay"? >>You see, "legal" != "okay" in all circumstances. Why do you keep bringing up legal? I think if we want to talk about hypothetical events we should be clear about the contexts in which those events would have occurred. Of the context, the legal aspect is just a part. This much you have said yourself. If you don't understand this....I will be happy to provide some references ....... but first I want you to dare me to. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,666 by CRConrad 5/6/02 4:51:20 PM Reply	Well, THAT is a lie if ever I saw one. Mike: Why do you keep bringing up legal? He doesn't; it's YOU who've introduced that time after time when he asked you if it was "Okay". And since David Finkelhor obviously didn't say, in the piece you cited -- and that's what counts here, not what you claim "is available" in some library or somewhere -- what you apparently thought (judging from the fact that at first you claimed that was where he said it) he said, mr Reading Comprehension, I wouldn't try to paint Brandioch with the "ignorance" brush if I were you. So, Lying: Yes, Brandi is right, Mike did/does lie; Ignorance: No, Mike is wrong, it isn't Brandioch who's ignorant here. Bravo, Mikey, you're two for two! Wanna try for three out of three? Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #37,680 by Brandioch 5/6/02 5:46:40 PM Reply	Christian, let's table this for now. #1. It has been established that Mike does NOT provide support for his "facts". #2. I am not going to waste my time digging through EVERYTHING ever written or said by Finkelhor to prove that he DID NOT say what Mike claims he said (without providing references). I'm sure everyone else here understands the futility of attempting to prove a negative. #3. I'm not even going to discuss/debate with someone who hasn't advanced to the point of being able to tell "okay" from "legal". #4. Not to mention the futility of discussion/debate with someone who doesn't understand the difference between "fact" and "opinion". #5. Yes, I do believe that Mike lies. Why discuss/debate with someone who lies? Like I said before, I'm out of this until he can prove to me that he's advanced enough to tell "okay" from "legal". I've provided him with the classic text-book example of slavery. There's really nothing more that can be done at this point.
Post #37,694 by Mike 5/6/02 9:23:57 PM Reply	You both should fucking ashamed of yourselves Intelligent debate indeed. Mr and Mrs "We couldn't find much under yahoo so it's not relevant and we're going to call you liar liar pants on fire". I don't know how you can look yourself in the mirror. This isn't debate its fucking nonsense. 1) Give someone an ultimatum that they can't name ONE name. 2) Get supplied with two. 3) Challenge the legitimacy of the name based on the fact that you didn't find anything. Avoid soliciting more information on the names from the supplier. Quickly move to a summary position. This isn't debate its a fucking clown show. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37690\| Response] -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,522 by Ashton 5/4/02 8:11:28 PM Reply	Maybe the question is not resolvable Given our cultural experience and also the merely - "Scientific-like" nature of the er social sciences. My opinion is that - we CAN'T conjure up an 'unbiased assessment' of something as convoluted as the topic of Sex. Any more than we can escape the fact of our own unique series of experiences, in coming up with opinions - not really. Wisdom would be required to judge ANY case and such ideas as, "from 12-14 THIS is correct behavior but if One is 20 then.." - are at least better than Black/White. I liked Ben T's comment on the rather less dogmatic Rx in Canada -- must have been fewer Puritans migrating northward.. in the Salem trials days? Sorry but - 'wisdom' can not be codifed, and it doesn't even approximately follow from perusal of a Titanic-load of textbooks either -- especially from the "social sciences". 'Law' deals with averages and mostly - the LCD. With that we are stuck. And that is apparently its guaranteed imperfection, whenever the theoretical-shit hits an actual fan. Ashton
Post #37,523 by Brandioch 5/4/02 8:32:28 PM Reply	Until there is a verifiable maturity test. Or wisdom test. The graduated scale is okay. I'd also say that any adult 5 or more years older than the child should not be having sex with said child. Now, once the kid turns 18, s/he is allowed to use his/her own judgement. Because we cannot test for wisdom or maturity, we will allow sufficient time for the individual to develop before okay'ing the predators.
Post #37,537 by Mike 5/4/02 11:03:08 PM Reply	Liked the gist And yes, I also liked Ben Tilly's post. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,514 by Ashton 5/4/02 6:07:19 PM 5/4/02 6:13:50 PM Reply	Lots of loaded didactic opinion in that.______ Don't buy it. Ex. Davidson said that "there's real trauma whether the perpetrator is male or female. No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful about a 16-year-old boy being in a relationship with a 30-year-old." Emphasis added. In Whose Opinion and why should I acccept it as some sort of Real-ity? Note the double-negative, No one in this field will tell you that there's nothing harmful ... I mistrust such absolute statements as also presume you can prove "the empty set". Especially do, when the sample size, methodology for asking 'leading questions' etc. is also absent. I do recall vividly, the "child molestation by Witchcraft" cockamamie madness of a few years back - and the patently false methods used by 'Social Workers' (!) to inculcate into the cheeldrun .. some snappy stories of Black Magic Doings: Adult-conceived, generated! "snappy stories". Remember? In brief - I continue to maintain that the word trauma is being bandied about here, and above, as social "science"-like conclusions are given Ex Cathedra. I'm impressed. Negatively. I can do as well "explaining" the frequent willingness to credit such sloppy work as this link - on This topic: simply by reminding again of the Puritan influence in Murican culture, the manifestly arrested-adolescent behavior of many so-called adults, the incessant use of something to do with SEX ... to SELL, also to titillate as in gossip - theologically to remind of Guilt and elicit sanctimony - and many other unNatural uses for a Natural function which.. (simply) MAKES MURICANS 'UNCOMFORTABLE'. (And is associated with 'dirty' !!!) Academia can hardly behave as if this weirdness about our culture Did Not Exist ergo: the weasel words and tut-tuts. Speak more plainly: no funds next year. Not "PC" but "CC" == Culturally Correct. But much too often - balderdash as well. (CC might also mean Cowardly Conformist or ___) Oh, did I say: I demur. {sheesh} Ashton who would go with Ruth Benedict or Margaret Mead, with fewer reservations than the modrin Organization-folks cited above. PS [Edit] - note also the very-modrin buzz words also within this excerpt: those "awful" women (the older ones) were Guilty of "lack of self-esteem"! THIS in an "oh so Scientific" screed. I think that if I hear that meaningless socio-babble phrase again, I might defenstrate - and take someone with me. Econ and Sociology are apparently our thorny Crosses to bear. But not necessarily cheerfully... Edited by Missing User 70 May 4, 2002, 06:13:50 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,464 by CRConrad 5/4/02 7:04:51 AM Reply	Who died and made YOU King of thread definitions, punk???
Post #37,401 by Mike 5/3/02 7:49:27 PM 5/3/02 7:49:57 PM Reply	Hmm -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 3, 2002, 07:49:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,462 by CRConrad 5/4/02 7:03:16 AM Reply	Sometimes, an "Alexander's Chop" is the only way. Mike asks Brandyshim: What is it your are fond of saying about simple solutions and complex problems? As long as the issues -- sexual maturity, capability to give meaningful "consent", motivation of the elder party, etc, etc -- are so confused, I think Khasioch's (implied) solution of "no sex between children and adults" is the ONLY solution that makes practical sense. (Unless of course you get your "sex-school" program, with thoroughly vetted licensed instructors, implemented. But until then, I think this is a case of:) Often, a radically simplified approach is not to be condemned as "over-simplistic", but recognized as the only possible solution. That's the moral of the story about Alexander and the Gordian knot, innit? Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #37,475 by Brandioch 5/4/02 9:00:54 AM Reply	Can it be any clearer? #1. Children mature at different rates. #2. There is no test to determine whether a child is ready (in all aspects) for sex. Therefore, ALL children will be assumed to NOT be ready until they reach a certain age. That means that adults DO NOT FUCK children. ("children" being defined as humans below the age of consent) This is the case even when: a. The child thinks s/he is ready. b. The child is attracted to the adult. c. The child WANTS to fuck the adult. d. The child KNOWS s/he is ready. There are TOO many factors that CAN NOT be determined. -therefore- The child is given TIME to mature. If the adult does NOT give the child the legally required time, the adult goes to jail.
Post #37,461 by CRConrad 5/4/02 7:02:52 AM Reply	Good idea in many ways - the problem will be... ...to keep "NAMBLA" (and similar opposite-sex) types from getting jobs as instructors. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #37,476 by Brandioch 5/4/02 9:03:22 AM Reply	Hmmmm, there's a thought. For all of you that think it is somewhat "okay" for a boy to fuck an older woman.... What if the boy wants to fuck an older GUY? Does this change your viewpoint?

Welcome to IWETHEY!