|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
What's there to think about, Timmy?
I mean, if the younger person had wanted sexual contact with Mark, then, in my mind it would have been morally (but not legally) okay.
If he didn't, and he just wanted to talk about sex, then sexual contact wouldn't have been okay.
As far as people of all ages go if they want to try something, they want to try it. If they don't, they don't. No means no. Stop means stop.
I honestly don't think the rules should be any different. But people should realise children do prefer different things to adults.
The only reason the rules are different is because Western morality holds sex to be something special, or sacred. And there's regret associated with being sexual with someone you only have a passing interest in. Deep regret. Sex is about vulnerability. We don't like to let people get close to us, and physically, sex is close. Which means emotionally it is close. We regret letting people that close to us. But teens have regret over relationships, friendships and "letting people close" in lots of other instances. And children don't regret- until they are teens/ adults- children just do. And it was either fun or it wasn't.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Remove the age of consent from the discussion completely. For the purposes of this discussion please assume that sex of any description is lawful from birth onwards.
Would that vary your answer? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
When answering please consider that one partner is 16+ and the other is "any age", and look at when and whether sexual acts are, in your opinion, beneficial to either or both parties, assuming that there are two parties, that is. More is fine, if you think it right.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fingolfin
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Slovakia
Registered: August 2008
Messages: 265
|
|
|
He never suggested anything and as I previously wrote, he claimed strong interest in girls... That may mean he was hiding his genuine feelings, but, as far as I knew him, very very probably not. Sexual play wasn't in cards and I knew that. Maybe that's the reason (accompanied by legal issues) why I didn't make a move...
Marek
It is better to switch on a small light than to curse the darkness.
- Vincent Šikula, Slovak writer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting, Timmy,
I can imagine a society which *did* find it acceptable to have some sorts of fully consensual sex between under 16 and over 16. And that maybe they would be better societies than ours. (By which I mean societies better able to meet the needs of its citizens so they can live more fulfilling lives.)
But one has to live with other people and where a large majority have strong views about some actions being inappropriate or worse, it is unwise to be seen to do them.
In a milder way I think that is the reason I am not fully 'out' - while just saying it would make some people think worse of me. Why say it?
But the 'guidelines about what sex between + & - 16 would be acceptable are pretty hard to draw.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Maybe that is also how he knew instinctively to trust you.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Honestly as I said in another topic regarding "rape", I don't believe sexual acts are more or less moral than any other action.
So yes, I would be happy with the age of consent being abolished. Violent acts against children, sexual or no, would be punished.
I can't think of a single non-violent action that I'd disapprove of, but I'm happy to consider any examples you might have of a relevant, immoral, non-violent, non-coercive action.
Children are still children and would be treated as such. But if a child fondled and adult and the adult fondled back it wouldn't be illegal. If an early teenager was curious about masturbation and oral sex an adult could show them "how to do it" without being jailed for years.
Any adult actively pursuing children for sex would likely be looked at as weird- much like any adult that tries to "date" children (a perfectly legal act, of course) or an adult that likes to go to playgrounds and use the swings. Children would likely avoid such weird adults and never agree to doing anything sexual.
As long as the law protects against kidnapping, violent assault (including rape) and coercion I really can't think of a problem....
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Saben, I think you are right.
It's a bit like the distinction between 'scientific knowledge' (good) and 'knowledge' (suspect). It is a completely false distinction. All 'scientific' knowledge is knowledge and all knowledge is 'scientific' (because guessing or faith or revelation or dreams are not knowledge at all.
And René Guyon's book "The ethics of sexual acts" is completely convincing on the subject. And HE says you are right - so he must be!.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
That does shine a very different light on matters. By the way, "morality" was not even in my mind here. I was simply wanting to explore whether certain contact could be "good" or "harmful"
[Updated on: Thu, 18 September 2008 22:11]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I think, by its very nature the only kind of "harmful" contact is violent and coercive contact.
"Good" and "bad", well, sometimes children sometimes play sports. They might enjoy it, they might not. It may even be an adult friend that suggests they try a particular sport. They might regret trying it. Which makes it "bad", I guess. But the I think children only need to be protected from violence and coercion, not from regret.
The contact itself is neutral, the response could be either. Much like the response to, well, anything. Like an adult getting a child to go on a roller-coaster.... That can be thrilling, or traumatic. But the decision, largely is still the child's, even if the adult uses persuasive language to convince them.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
What is the difference between 'persuasive' and 'coercive' in this context?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy,
Not doing harm and doing good are the characteristics of moral behaviour. I thought we had just agreed that there really isn't a valid distinction between morality and sexual morality (OK it was just Saben supported by me and the late René Guyon, but everyone OUGHT to agree).
So when sexual contact between people below and above 16 is good it is moral and when it isn't it is immoral.
The question is can such contact ever be good (for the child) and, although I wouldn't be happy for me to do such a thing, I do think it could be.
It certainly seems strange to me that children still learn about the emotional side of sex in hole and corner ways - in the back seats of cars or worse places and commonly with the hateful attitude of the yob football supporter and the notion of 'scoring'! Just look at the top shelf magazines to see what a typical person's attitude to sexual morality is. I find that far more distasteful than 'under-age sex' between children of fourteen and seventeen.
And in Spain the age of consent is 13! I think perhaps it ought to be zero everywhere and that the test for whether harm has been done should be much better thought out and the law changed to make harmful sex illegal. [I did tell you I was an idealist!]
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Persuasion is use of words only.
Coercion usually is accompanied by a threat of violence or intimidation.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel very uncomfortable about this - it neglects to consider the issue of "grooming". This is effectively where an adult knowingly sets out over a long period of time to subvert the child's developing views, to specifically stress the "normality" and "acceptability" of the adult's desired outcomes (sex with the child). Bribery and treats are common - overt coercion, less so.
All adults do this to some extent, of course. But "grooming" is often presented in the context of "shared secrets" (so is explicitly non-normalising), and is not based on any consideration of what the adult thinks is best for the child. I think that, in the case of children who are still developing their own moral compasses and views of the world, there is a distinction between "persuasion" and "grooming" or brainwashing. It isn't unique to the sexual sphere, of course - many religious cults effectively do the same thing (though they are more likely to add some element of coercion to the mix).
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, NW,
I suspect that the test is whether the adult starts off with the object of having sex with the child eventually.
A bit like the presidency: wanting it ought to be a disqualification from trying to get it.
And there are all sorts of problems because when I was twenty I think I wanted sex with almost everyone I met and liked. Manners and social pressures stopped me, of course, but, as my friend Jennifer said "He saw something nasty in the woodshed and LIKED it!"
And I suppose I am lucky like Marek in that I've never felt it would be OK to offer or ask for sexual favours from any much younger person and so have never been anywhere near crossing that boundary.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
How about "Come on, you'll enjoy it, I promise you'll enjoy it. Now bend over..."
That seems to me to be simple words. Is that persuasion, coercion or taking advantage of the gullible? Or is it something else entirely?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
> I think, by its very nature the only kind of "harmful" contact is violent and coercive contact.
I don't agree with this at all - I can think of a number of situations where a consensual sexual relationship between adult and child could only be detrimental.
Case in point. My father has (as many here know) had a number of wives during the course of his life. In two cases, he married women who had adolescent (12/13 y old) daughters. In both cases, the daughters became aggressively flirtatious with my father, and gave the impression of wanting to have sex with him. I'm not altogether clear about their motivations ... though in one case I suspect there was an element of "revenge" against the mother for having "abandoned" the daughter in favour of my father, and in the other I think it was probably a need for reassurance that he was *actually* safe, supportive, and to relied on (and so an attempt to build additional ties to "keep" him).
From any rational perspective, if my father had decided that it was OK to have sex with either child, the outcome could only be a breakdown of relationships between the mother and my father, and between the daughter and the mother. There's no doubt that most adults are more capable of seeing this kind of implication than most 12 year olds, and I feel this places a burden of responsibility on them to act accordingly.
I don't say that sexual relationships between adult and child are *always* wrong. But where there's a very significant age gap, I generally feel that that's the way to bet.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pipo
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Registered: July 2008
Messages: 35
|
|
|
I tend to agree with what you said in another post:
For me, at least, the high risk of exposing the child to emotional damage, and the power imbalance in adult/child relationships, means that they would *always* be immoral. A now-departed poster here has persuaded me that they might not always be so for all combinations of adults and children, even in this society ... but for me, they would be.
I have felt some attraction to under 18-year olds in the past but I am very glad that I never acted upon that. And -looking back- I believe that the adult just kids himself if he claims an adolescent to be "so adult/mature/ready for a relationship". Fact is that adolescents are of volatile temperament and generally not emotionally stable, however intelligent they are or "mature" they seem to be. I do not believe that an adult acts responsibly if he enters into a real sexual relationship with an adolescent person and the potential of harming the younger person for life is indeed very high.
But when is a relationship ok? I think 16 is definitely far too young, but I know some guys who even at 21 are not very secure or mature in their sexuality. I would still feel I was taking advantage of a guy like that, even if he is legally an adult (btw. one of the guys I am thinking of -he is supposedly heterosexual but came on to me once when he was very drunk- told me the other day that I was "strange but likable". I took it as a compliment ;-D).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I agree with you. But let me ask a question.
Be 13. Have the perspective of that 13 year old. You feel mature, self assured. You are no longer a child, that is for sure. You view yourself as very grown up (just as you did at 10, 11, 12!). To all the rest of the world you may look mature or immature, that is not the point. You feel ready for anything, everything, life has to throw at you. And you are horny as hell.
You happen to find older guys or girls attractive (gay/bi/str8 is immaterial). Maybe 18 or 19. And you get the chance to have a crack at sex with one.
It's fun, and you want more. Is that OK?
It all went horribly wrong and you feel a fool. Is that OK?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pipo
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: July 2008
Messages: 35
|
|
|
Yes, I can understand that perspective, but I can still not see the storm of emotion having (much chance of) a happy ending. When I was 13, I would definitely have been unable to take the long view, but one would hope that the older person would see that and behave more responsibly. I would not judge an 18 year old person if things would stop at just fondling, though. That might be just fun and OK as you say.
For myself... definitely not even that (I am a bit older than 18  ). I work with much younger people and I just keep my distance physically of the not-yet-adult ones. I have a 16 year old boy working for me in school holidays who seems to be rather fond of me (and definitely not interested in girls), so I do speak from current experience. You are right, he does view himself as grown-up but he has his share of emotional storms too - he regularly vents his frustrations in IM chats with me.
[Updated on: Sat, 20 September 2008 22:17] |
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
role play for a moment or two, please. 