|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I suppose I should start by saying that nothing that I am about to say condones or justifies the abuse of children. I rather think that ought to be taken as read, but I don't want it to seem as if I am encouraging anything at all. Of course, at this point "Methinks he doth protest too much" comes into people's minds, so I'd have been better not to start with that.
Every so often the media tells us that it is no surprise that X abused children, because X was abused as a child. I've taken that as a definitive statement until I engaged my brain, and agreed with it. Now I wonder about it.
We know that hurting anyone is wrong. Thus we know that hurting a child is wrong, the more so since there is a huge imbalance of power when an adult hurts a child. That child cannot get away because it is weaker than the adult, and often depends on the adult for food and shelter, too. We can add to that the simple concept that forcing a child to do anything against its will is wrong. Obviously there is a point where we must disagree. Part of raising children is to stop them from doing things which will harm them. Sometimes we have to force that child to stop doing those things. We may also need to force the child to do things that are genuinely good for it. Cleaning teeth is one such thing. Not screaming the place down when it doesn't get its way is another, though that is also a grey area. Sometimes it's right that the child should scream the place down because it is being forced to do something wrong, and its way should prevail.
Already this is an imprecise discussion, and I haven't even approached the meat of it yet.
Society has set an age below which sexual activity is unlawful. It's a concept that is a decent idea in all senses of the word. We live in society and delegate the power to make such decisions to our elected representatives and they impose our delegated authority upon us. And children, as we know, are easy to force to do things because of the huge power difference between an adult and a child. There are arguments for a better interpretation of the age of consent, but let's leave it as it stands for the discussion. It is an absolute offence to engage in sexual activity of any sort by a person over the age with a person under the age. For the discussion we need to accept that.
Let me postulate a child, some random distance under the age of consent, and a person, male or female, some random distance over it. If those two people should enjoy some form of sexual activity in a mutually fulfilling manner and if neither is hurt, should we, as bystanders, judge that activity to be unlawful?
We do. We do far worse than that. We attempt to lynch the older person. Here in the UK we have just had an example of that. A teacher and his pupil went away together, for whatever purpose. He is being extradited from France to face charges of child abduction. The public has been braying for his head on a plate. That is just for going away with her. I'm sure we've decided that he is a paedophile, though that is a lousy interpretation of the true definition of the word. His alleged abductee is not a child except by legal definition of being both a minor and below the age of sexual consent for the activity we, the public, have presumed in our prurience, took place.
If it did take place, was she then abused? If the law says she was, will she go on to abuse younger people?
Ah, but she is a girl. Girls don't have penises, and thus the public feels they cannot abuse sexually. So, had she been Martin instead of Megan, would Martin, whom we suppose will have been abused, go on to abuse?
The answer is, of course, 'that he will'. The public knows this and says so. And this is because he both has a penis and was abused as a child, whether he enjoyed it or not, whether he was hurt or not, but because he is gay, and being gay is wrong in the minds of the public even f they are prevented here from discriminating against gauy people. The public still believes that it is possible to make boys gay. We should beware the power of stupid people in large groups
As a side issue, I often wonder if that is because anal sex is such great fun that using a vagina afterwards is literally an anticlimax. I will bet that any man will prefer sex with a man for recreation if no-one else were ever to discover it had happened! But back to the plot!
The plot is really a question or two. It was a long preamble, but, like foreplay, I wanted to get you into the mood.
"Quote:"If a child, of whatever age, has a fulfilling sexual experience with another person of whatever age, it is likely that this child will wish to share that with others. Is that abuse?
If that child continues to share that with others as it passes the age of consent, is that abuse?
So does the child who was abused, if you say it was abuse, continue the alleged cycle of abuse and abuse others?
And, if you say it is abuse, why do you say it is abuse? And does your argument hold true in all cases where the participants are willing and are unharmed?
We have at least one person who posts here who engaged in a relationship with an older person that he mistook for, was bamboozled into mistaking for, being loved by the other person. They crossed the age of consent divide. He discovered later in life that the relationship was one where the older used his greater experience of life to bamboozle him into being a sexual outlet instead of loving him and caring for him as he wished and hoped. Clearly that was an abusive relationship. But what if the older had loved him and cared for him and they had made a life together as true lovers, not the lustful and the lusted after and discarded?
And, had that relationship been one of equal partnership, if it had ended after half a dozen years, would that have been abuse?
We can say with clarity that our friend does not abuse others. He's an ordinary and decent bloke who sometimes goes the extra mile to help others.
Well, that was long. Parts rambled. "Too long, didn't read" may apply.
[Updated on: Sun, 07 October 2012 11:13]
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
One of my characteristics, less charitably referred to as faults, is that I tend to over analyse a topic and then ramble on about it. This is one such topic, and especially so because it has many complexities. Probably this post will fall into in the category of "Too long; didn't read".
Most people, and societies, tend to shy away from such complex issue, even when those issues don't carry the added emotional and moral ramifications as this one. When people can't (or don't wish to) think about such issues, they look to politicians or religious leaders to provide them with nice, simple rules-of-thumb. One such example is an age of consent. The strength of the desire to have a nice simple answer means that people are happy to accept almost any answer that the politicians give. Thus, different countries appear to be content with their own ages of consent, even though in one country it may be 13 and another it may be 20.
If I understand correctly, the topic title has the implied question - does an abused person become an abuser? Later in the post, the quoted questions indicate that it is in fact a very complex issue. It seems to be inextricably linked with other questions, such as: how do we define abuse? what is a reasonable age of consent? what, exactly, is consent? etc.
So, to attempt to answer the topic title, there must be at least an attempt to address the linked questions.
Apart from complexity, there are other reasons why this is one of those subjects about which it is very difficult to consider totally rationally and logically. Although we may pride ourselves on our skills with logical analysis, we are also products of our society and the way we were brought up. Much as I try to think logically about questions raised in this thread, I must admit that I cannot completely shut out the 'conditioning' that all children receive as they are brought up to be members of their society.
Could we realistically expect to reach any meaningful agreed conclusions on the morality of slavery if we discussed it with a citizen of the Roman Empire in the first century AD? Could a family in early industrial England really understand our horror at the idea of sending a six-year-old down a coal mine? Could either that family or the Roman even understand our concept of childhood?
Therefore, no matter how much logical analysis I try to use, it must be admitted that the premises it is based upon are strongly influenced by the mores and assumptions of our current society. With that in mind, I'll put forward my three premises:
It is wrong to have sex with someone who does not or cannot give 'informed consent'.
Sex without informed consent is 'abuse'.
Children below a certain age cannot give informed consent.
Of course, the idea of informed consent doesn't just apply to 'underage' sex but, as we see in recent news articles, the difficulty there can be in deciding if there is full and informed consent between heterosexual adults. If an adult male and adult female go to bed together and have totally voluntary sex, does the man have to obtain separate consent for each penetration, or does lack of negative response in the (conscious) partner sufficiently indicate consent? What if two very drunk adults have sex - can either of them give informed consent?
Again, society's attitudes to such things can change with time - not too long ago, the concept that there could be rape in marriage would have had very little meaning. After all, if a woman didn't consent to sex with her husband, and if she didn't intend that consent to be ongoing, then why marry him?
There are many ways in which there can be a lack of informed consent: being drunk or unconscious; being physically forced; being coerced (e.g. by threat of violence), etc. There are arguments that coercion may be more subtle - if a person (male or female) has no other means of providing income for food and shelter, is prostitution a result of coercion?
What if your boss tries to seduce you, and you're concerned about your career if you don't agree? Is that coercion, even if the boss is clear in his/her own mind that your acceptance or refusal will in no way affect your job prospects? What if your favourite famous sportsman, actor, writer, singer, etc, uses the fact that you'd do anything to please him to get you to have sex with him, but all the time he intends to dump you as soon as he's fucked you? What if you fall in love with someone who doesn't return your feelings but pretends to do so in order to get you to perform sexual acts that you wouldn't otherwise do?
The are many possible ways of abusing others. In the case of the teacher and girl mentioned, actual age of consent seems much less relevant than the possible abuse of the sort of influence and trust bestowed upon a teacher by a hero-worshipping student. However, for the purpose of this discussion, let's set aside those considerations and look to the specific case of children and young people.
Two of the reasons that humans have been a successful species are: living in societies and the ability to pass on information from one generation to the next. We have evolved so that children have a wonderful ability not just to learn information but also to absorb unconsciously the behaviours and rules of their society. Initially, as little children, they accept all that without question. Later, often as teenagers, they start to question and think for themselves.
At some point most of them will reach the stage where they have decided what teachings to accept from earlier generations and what conclusions to draw for themselves. This stage we can call being 'adult'. It may take many years to reach, and some never reach it, no matter how old they are.
So, we have evolved to have children who accept most things that adults, especially parents, say or do as 'normal'. Even if that means daily undeserved beatings, or other forms of abuse. Thus it would be easy for an adult (or other older person) get a child to engage sexual activities. It would even be easy to manipulate the child into initiating such activities and believing they are totally responsible for them.
To me, the conclusion seems inescapable - there is a very strong probability that any sexual activity between adult and child would not involve informed consent, and there would be no way to determine retrospectively that there was any informed consent. Therefore, society is right to criminalise sexual activity between adults and children. Obviously, the children themselves shouldn't be criminalised or blamed.
Of course, in practice, there needs to be some definition of 'adult' and 'child' that doesn't assume that a child suddenly and magically becomes an adult on their 16th birthday. That is something on which society should be able to reach a concensus, provided that it can be discussed rationally. A good starting point for such a discussion might be the ideas here (http://iomfats.org/resources/ageofconsent.html).
Certainly, the current laws relating to childhood in general are inconsistent. For example, in law, a child suddenly becomes capable of criminal responsibility on his/her 10th birthday, yet he/she cannot consent to sexual activities until their 16th birthday. This sort of law can lead to all sorts of ludicrous situations, some of which have been mentioned here (http://forum.iomfats.org/t/8178/)
Finally, to the subject of this topic. It seems to me that it can only addressed in terms of the above issues of childhood and informed consent. At that stage, proper research should be able to provide us with information that might answer the question: does someone who was abused as a child have a higher probability of becoming an abuser than someone who was not abused as a child?
Bearing in mind that children accept as normal the way they've been brought up, it would not surprise me to find that the answer would be 'yes'. Similarly, it wouldn't surprise me if children brought up exposed to racist or violent adults would be more likely to be racist or violent when they, too, become adults. Of course, even if the statistical evidence says they are more likely to be abusers, it doesn't mean they actually will be abusers. Just because a person grows up in a violent household doesn't mean he will definitely be predisposed to violence. Indeed, it may well mean that he wil find all forms of violence totally abhorrent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Quote:Kitzyma wrote on Sun, 07 October 2012 14:56
It is wrong to have sex with someone who does not or cannot give 'informed consent'.
Sex without informed consent is 'abuse'.
Children below a certain age cannot give informed consent.
My son's partner has a brother who has an IQ of 48 and whose suffering from Williams Syndrome means he is intensely friendly. He has no concept of cause and effect. He lives in sheltered housing with substantial support from carers. He has a long term girlfiend who is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, though has no label to hang around her neck. They are in their early twenties.
They both have a normal life expectancy and will, barring accidents, make old bones. Are these people capable of giving informed consent?
If they are capable, what if the sexual partner of choice is of average intelligence and has average ability to comprehend situations. Does that become abusive?
Children have, in the main, an absolute black and white sense of right and wrong. I postulate that they are more than capable of making a simple analysis of whether they wish to have sexual contact with someone else and to decide with whom they wish to have it and with whom they do not. They are also well able to determine whether what will take place is against their will. They may simply be powerless to get out of a situation where they are screaming "NO!" as loudly as they are able.
So who is capable of giving true informed consent?
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
I don't think that there are any easy answers to the questions raised here. If there are, I certainly don't have them.
The question of low IQ can be of variable relevance - the measurement of IQ may not accurately describe an ability to make important decisions about one's life. If a 10 year old child has an IQ of 130, does that mean he's more capable of deciding to have sex than a 13 year old who got an IQ of a mere 100?
With regards to potentially vulnerable people like the son's partner's brother, I don't believe there should be a ban on him having a sexual partner, though maybe there could be some concern about contraception. However, maybe there should be a mechanism by which some official body ensures that the vulnerable person is indeed willing and not being taken advantage of.
Children (defined how?) may be capable of deciding to have sexual experiences with their own age-group. However, once there is he imbalance of child and adult then, for reasons (e.g. evolutionary) set out in my previous post, there is very likely to be such a dangerous power imbalance that there is unlikely to be truly informed consent and more likely to be a significant risk of coercion and/or manipulation.
As referred to above, clearly it all depends how we define 'child' and 'adult. The idea of abuse between a 16 year old 'adult' and a 15 year old 'child' is ludicrous. We can propose all sorts of hypothetical and real situations, but apart from extremes there will always be intermediate situations which can be debated. Most would probably condone the above 15 year old and 16 year old having sex, but they would condemn a 35 year old and a 5 year old. I think a reasonable starting point for a debate could be the table here (http://iomfats.org/resources/ageofconsent.html).
Surely, there must be a minimum age of consent - personally, I'd say capable of producing sperm or egg, but is there anyone who would say 8 years old or less? Surely there must be a maximum age difference when someone under a certain age (say, 16??) is involved. What about a 15 year old and a 9 year old? What about a 20 year old and a 10 year old? Does it make it better or worse if they've known one another for a long time? What difference does it make if the adult is in a position of authority.
Also, it's not just about the ages of the two parties but the particular dynamic. A particular 12 year old might be quite capable of real consent with a particular 15 year old, but the same 12 year old might not be able to truly consent to sex with a different 15 year old, because the dynamics of the relationships are different.
So I think that the postulation that children "are more than capable of making a simple analysis of whether they wish to have sexual contact with someone else and to decide with whom they wish to have it and with whom they do not" rather oversimplifies the issue, not least because it doesn't mention the age or development of the child or the other person being referred to.
When it is a 30 year old and a 15 year old who believe they are in love, do they have to have instant sexual gratification? If it is indeed true love, do they not trust that love to be still be there in a few months, and wait until the sex will be legal? Love and sex are not the same thing. Society may not be approving of 30 and 15 loving one another, but I don't think it is as illegal as sex would be.
In an ideal world, we might have a mechanism (like a committee of special social workers?) who could, by interviewing both parties, decide if a particular child is capable of having consensual sex with a particular adult, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, the best that can be expected would be a reasonable discussion about ages of consent and age differences (as referred to in the above link).
There are no easy answers, so my personal feeling would be to err on the side of caution. e.g. There would, in my mind, be such an imbalance between a 12 year old and a 20 year old that the risk of it being abusive and not truly consenting would be too great to allow it to be legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whew! What a complex question! But as this can of worms is open, let's pull out a few of them and see if they're ordinary earthworms, brandlings (Eisenia fetida), or the dreaded New Zealand flatworm (Arthurdendyus triangulatus).
To start with pre-pubertal children. Yup, kids DO have a sexuality (one of Freud's most important insights, I think), and it's right that they explore it. Indeed. that's a vital part of growing up. However, prepubertal sexuality is completely different from "adult" sexuality - and I for one have since my mid-teens found it hard to recall with any clarity exactly what it was like. So I think that for fully post-pubertal people to have sexual contact with pre-pubertal ones simply cannot work: there's such an imbalance of physical and emotional contexts that it will seriously damage the younger person. IMO, that makes it a breach of the trust younger kids should be able to extend to adults they are close to, and therefore deeply wrong.
On a similar note, I think the principle of "breach of trust" can be carried over to adults with particular responsibilities - parents, schoolteachers, scoutmasters, clergy ... I'm happy with the principle that society should restrict the activities of people who undertake such responsibilities, and that while someone is under their care as a minor, sex is inappropriate and possibly damaging for the younger partner. Wait until they become legally fully adult! The dangers are, to my mind, fully demonstrated by the current headline case in the UK - the sex in itself is far less harmful than the running away together and disrupting the kid's life and education.
Which leaves a broad area in the middle. Generally, I think the law isn't really the right instrument for this: it deals in certainties, and fixed ages. Morally, I take the view that sex between people at broadly-similar stages of physical development is always OK, and it becomes intrinsically less OK as the difference increases. However, I think the involvement of the law often does more damage than an inappropriate relationship! Our society has not yet developed the kind of personalised, child-centred care and support structures that can deal well with this kind of thing. If I had been a parent, I would have made my own judgement regardless of the opinion of others, on my knowledge of those involved ... a pragmatic but hardly satisfactory approach.
And so to the question of IQ and other imbalances. This is an area very close to home, and I think best covered in some explanation of my own circumstances, which (if I have the nerve) I'll post separately.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
"NW wrote on Mon, 08 October 2012 12:18"
To start with pre-pubertal children. Yup, kids DO have a sexuality (one of Freud's most important insights, I think), and it's right that they explore it. Indeed. that's a vital part of growing up. However, prepubertal sexuality is completely different from "adult" sexuality - and I for one have since my mid-teens found it hard to recall with any clarity exactly what it was like. So I think that for fully post-pubertal people to have sexual contact with pre-pubertal ones simply cannot work: there's such an imbalance of physical and emotional contexts that it will seriously damage the younger person. IMO, that makes it a breach of the trust younger kids should be able to extend to adults they are close to, and therefore deeply wrong.
I can recall parts of my own perpubertal sexuality, but they do merge with onrushing puberty. It consisted with a fascination for body parts, mine and others, male and female alike, plus mechanical masturbation without any emotional content. No-one else was required as a part of it, though we boys discussed it ad nauseam and with appalling assumptions made.
Insofar as the future was involved I expected to be 100% heterosexual, though had no particular concept of what it meant except for diagrams from badly drawn booklets. Homosexuality was an irrelevance as were relationships, love and even lust. Masturbation was private and only involved me.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll offer my thoughts on this from my own experiences, so a bit of background first for those who don't know me.
I'm a respectable former Local Government senior officer in my late 50s, early-retired on grounds of disability. In my early teens I was very much in love with a guy several years older, and had a sexual relationship with him that went on for the best part of a couple of years. It subsequently came out that he had a "thing" for boys going through puberty, and I grew out of being attractive to him ... six or seven years ago I came to realise fully that this relationship had been exploitative, and in many respects abusive. Thanks to Timmy and the rest here for seeing me through that difficult period!
I come from a nice middle-class family, though my father was often physically abusive - largely though frustration. As a sensitive bookish child, I was not the kind of boy he had been forced to be by his parents (tough and sporty). It wasn't until my 50s that I realised how threatening I must have been, representing a side of himself that he'd repressed for many years.
For nearly three years I've been living with a guy who is 36 years younger than me. When we got together, I was three times his age. Some here know his name, but for these purposes let's call him "Austen". He's now 21.
Austen was born HIV+ to a drug-addict mother. He spent his childhood in and out of care, and absconding to sleep rough, or live with his addict father. Introduced to crack at the age of 7, and to heroin at the age of 11, he was sometimes prostituted by his father in order to fund their drug habits. He has severe ADHD, and his IQ has effectively not been measured because he never sat still long enough to complete a test, though it's estimated as around 90 (at least 30 points lower than mine).
Since we've been living together, Austen has started to turn his life round. He's almost completed his "reduction" of methadone (prescribed heroin substitute), and should be completely off it by Halloween. He has almost completely given up the petty criminality that characterised his adolescence, and (with my support) is becoming much more stable. The only exception was recently: he went off the rails a bit when I developed heart problems, but has settled back down now it has been established that the problems are not immediately life-threatening.
Austen's father died when he was in his early teens, and his stepfather died just over a year ago. I'm the only stable older-male role model he's had, and am seen by all the authorities as his "carer", though we describe the relationship as "carer/partner".
Austen is an affectionate and physically-demonstrative lad, often inappropriately so (hugging one's nurses may be OK, but most would draw the line at solicitors, probation workers and suchlike!) who describes himself as bisexual.
It's clear that there's a lot of the parental in our relationship. On my side, a desire to prove that one can "parent" someone utterly different and partly incomprehensible, in a way my own father failed to do. On Austen's part, looking for an idealised father he never had. At the same time, there's a strong physical and sexual attraction between us, and there's no doubt that we're in love - though we may have rather different understandings of "love".
I'm not going to confirm or deny if we've had sex, or of what kind if any. But what would be (for me) the moral parameters?
I'm clearly in a position of responsibility, so (for me) it would be entirely wrong for me to suggest or initiate sex, either verbally or non-verbally. That's a firm line, from my own experience of being abused: I cannot in any way risk perpetuating a cycle of "abused becomes abuser".
But if Austen suggests it / were to suggest it? To say yes might be seen as reinforcing sex as a way to hold on to people, or get power over them - something he knows has he sometimes done in the past. To say no might come across as rejecting, or not really having the depth of commitment I express in works, or rejecting the ultimate sharing because of his HIV status.
So I would, or do, take a personal and pragmatic line. If Austen suggests / were to suggest sex (and wasn't outrageously drunk), I would sometimes accept and sometimes decline (depending on how much pain I was/am in due to my disability, how I feel/felt, etc), with a view to showing that sex is/was great, but that isn't/wasn't what was at the core of our relationship.
I'm not looking for advice on this - I've made my decision and I'm happy with it. But I thought it might be useful to show how complex it all is, and the kind of messy, ad-hoc, slightly solipsistic but very human moral decision that happens in the real world.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
This is not intended to be frivolous, though some might think it so.
A person who is drunk will do things that they would not do when totally sobre. So if someone is very drunk, but still conscious, can they give informed consent to sex? If not, then if one person gets another person drunk in order to get them to have sex, is that not wrong? However, maybe it's possible that both are equally drunk, so that any wrongdoing cancels out.
A person who is deeply in love will do things with a beloved that they would not do with someone they were not in love with. Someone in love often does not think rationally, especially about their beloved. Our language even acknowledges this with phrases such as 'madly in love' or 'intoxicated by love'. So people in love will tolerate the sort of physical, mental, or sexual treatment from the beloved that they would not tolerate from anyone else.
If an older person (say over 25) gets a teenager (say under 15) drunk in order that the teenager will be willing to have sex, that would (I hope!) be considered wrong. If the older person gets the teenager to fall in love with him/her (grooming??) in order to get the teenager to have sex, is that not equally wrong?
The teenager in love will say and believe that he/she is totally willing and consenting to the sex, but can that consent be any more valid than consent while drunk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma, I think there is a weakness in your argument, but I'm not sure that I can describe it adequately.
The aim of getting drunk or getting someone else drunk is a feeling of well being, which may well become the opposite when too much is drunk. There is no direct connection between getting drunk and sex, just a (co)incidental one.
The aim of people falling in love is cause them to bond so that they do have sex, then reproduce. Therefore nature makes a direct connection between falling in love (bonding) and sex.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
"Nigel wrote on Tue, 09 October 2012 22:09"Kitzyma, I think there is a weakness in your argument, but I'm not sure that I can describe it adequately.
The aim of getting drunk or getting someone else drunk is a feeling of well being, which may well become the opposite when too much is drunk. There is no direct connection between getting drunk and sex, just a (co)incidental one.
The aim of people falling in love is cause them to bond so that they do have sex, then reproduce. Therefore nature makes a direct connection between falling in love (bonding) and sex.
Hugs
Nigel
--
I agree that there are differences between getting drunk and falling in love. e.g. Drinking is usually done deliberately and usually people don't deliberately fall in love. However, there is one thing in common in the state of drunkenness and the state of being in love (madly in love, intoxicated by love) - in both states normal judgment is impaired. With alcohol, the state of well-being is accompanied by impaired reaction times and impaired judgment even before reaching the state of what some may call being 'drunk'.
Thus, the comparison I was trying to make was between:
1) the ACT of one person (A) trying to get another (B) drunk with the deliberate intention of impairing B's judgment so that A can have sex with B;
2) the ACT of one person (A) trying to get another (B) to fall in love with him/her, with the deliberate intention of impairing B's judgment so that A can have sex with B.
i.e. my comparison was between the ACT and the intention rather than the specific mechanism (alcohol or love).
For an experienced seducer, it may be relatively easy to get an inexperienced young person, e.g. early teen, to fall in love ('sweep them off their feet'). Indeed, nowadays that younger person may be more experienced with alcohol than with love. Getting them to fall in love with you may take longer and may be less certain of success, but when success is achieved, love tends to last much longer than being drunk.
Yes, even when comparing the act and intention, I know that there are indeed still differences, just as there are between getting someone drunk and drugging them with a date rape drug. There may differences both in methodology and in the degree of culpability. However, I still believe that there is a meaningful comparison to be made between 1 and 2 above.
Kit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was I abused? I was 12, she was 16. It was once.
Yet I have no desire for 12 or 16 year-olds, male or female. In fact, only a slight desire for females at all. That was my only sexual experience for years. Where's the cycle? Maybe if it was more traumatic? It was fun, she was teaching me after finding me experimenting alone, and told me it would never happen again when she left. Maybe that's the difference?
She'd be prosecuted today. Her parents would probably have put her to task themselves. Mine would have tisked and rolled their eyes and asked, "What were thinking?"
As for the law, well, with so many parents the way they are today, they never notice even when it was horrible and hurt the child, so someone has to step in and help those kids. It's just not all that way.
As for intentions, we have sneaky predators out there, using technology to search for those in risk. And more and more parents totally disconnected from their kids' lives. And sex is so pervasive, kids are forced to be aware of it far too young. Internet prowling using emotions or physically using drugs, it's the same as far as I'm concerned. The intention is the same, take advantage of someone.
[Updated on: Fri, 12 October 2012 04:31]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kiwi
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: New Zealand
Registered: August 2009
Messages: 317
|
|
|
This has been an interesting discussion of a very emotive subject. I'm late to the party (again), but thanks to those who contributed.
Just a couple of points - abused children can, and sometimes do, go on to become abusers themselves, but not always, obviously. I've known of several cases where they did and some where they didn't.
A few years ago, in a small town near here, a convicted pedophile, having done his time in jail, moved into town and that caused an uproar - public protests and threats of vigilante action etc even made the national news. The guy gave-up and moved away to somewhere else, to the locals' delight. No-one wants to see a child abused and it shouldn't happen, but at the same time there was a double-murderer living in the same neighbourhood and no-one worried about him because he'd 'done his time'. At least abuse victims are not dead - though sometimes they might wish they were.
Whenever child abuse, especially sexual abuse, is discussed in public it seems to bring out the worst in people and one of the many elephants in the room is sexual abuse of children by females. Timmy touched on that in the original post, but it is usually ignored. I once asked a senior social worker, involved in re-education programmes for adolescent and adult offenders, why there were no programmes for female abusers? He said that NOBODY wants to look at that but, in his opinion, abuse by females is probably even more common than that by males - especially in the case of very young and infant children.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
