>>"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-oldTo 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?(formatting added)
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).
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 seeAnd 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.
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."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......"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.
>>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.
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]