Follow Dan
Savage Love Podcast
Got a question for Dan Savage?
Call the Savage Love Podcast at 206-201-2720
or email Dan at mail@savagelove.net.
Savage Love Archives
-
Oct 8
Friends in Need -
Oct 1
Friend in Need -
Sep 24
Making a Move -
Sep 17
Get It Together -
Sep 10
Quick and Dirty
More from Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Tears For Gears
-
SL Letter of the Day: The End Is Near
-
SL Letter of the Day: Why Are All My Straight Boyfriends Fucking Dudes?
-
Some Words of Comfort for the Hurting Members of Mars Hill
-
Savage Love: Polyproblema
Books by Dan Savage
American Savage
It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living
The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family
Things I've Learned from Women Who've Dumped Me
Skipping Towards Gomorrah
The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant
Savage Links
- Babeland
- Fleshbot
- Good Vibrations
- Joe Newton/Savage Illustrations
- Planned Parenthood
- Spreading Santorum
- Kinsey Confidential
- Carnal Nation
- Tiny Nibbles
Want a Second Opinion?
Contact Dan Savage
Savage on YouTube
Loading...
Another Gold-Star Pedophile
March 7, 2012
+ Enlarge this Image
Joe Newton
I'm a gay man in my late 20s who has been trying to deal with an attraction to young boys since I hit puberty. I know that what I feel is wrong and wish to Christ that I could have a normally wired brain. I have never abused a child; I do not look at child pornography. But I need to speak to a therapist because I can't get through this on my own. Bottom line is I'm afraid. Seriously afraid. I don't know what my legal rights are and I don't know how to go about getting more information without incriminating myself. I'm sure there are more people than just me who need to talk about this. My problem is that I'm not financially stable enough to afford seeing someone for more than a few sessions. I just can't keep saying I'm fine, and I can't let healthy relationships fall apart because I'm unable to talk to anyone about my problem.
Can't Wish It Away
I shared your letter with Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist, associate professor at the University of Toronto, and editor in chief of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. (Follow Dr. Cantor on Twitter @JamesCantorPhD.) The first thing he said, CWIA, was that you deserved praise—he called you "an ace"—for making it this far without having committed an offense.
But accessing the support you need to get through the next six or seven decades of life without sexually abusing a child—support the culture should provide to men and women like you in order to protect children—isn't going to be easy, Dr. Cantor said, particularly if you live in the United States.
"Other countries have created programs to help people like CWIA," said Dr. Cantor. "Germany has Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, which includes a hospital-based clinic and anonymous hotlines that people who are attracted to children can call when they need to talk to someone, vent, or debrief. In Canada, we have the Circles of Support and Accountability—groups of volunteers who provide assistance and social support and who, in turn, receive support and supervision from professionals."
But Canada funds these programs only for people who committed a sexual offense. The Circles program isn't open to "gold-star pedophiles," my term for men and women who have successfully struggled against their attraction to children without any support or credit. (Yes, credit. Someone who is burdened with an attraction to children—no one chooses to be sexually attracted to children—and successfully battled that attraction all of his adult life deserves credit for his strength, self-control, and moral sense.)
Sadly, in the United States, we've taken steps that make it harder for pedophiles to get the support they need to avoid offending.
"One of the recent regulations in the United States is mandatory reporting," said Dr. Cantor. "These regulations vary by region, but in general, if a client has children or provides care to children and admits to experiencing sexual attraction to children—any children—the therapist is required to report the client to the authorities, regardless of whether any abuse was actually occurring."
The goal is to protect children, of course, and that is a goal I fully support as a parent and a human being. But broad mandatory reporting policies have an unintended consequence: People like CWIA—people who need help to avoid acting on their attraction to children—are cut off from mental health professionals who can give them the tools, insight, and support they need. Mandatory reporting policies, designed to protect children, may be making children less safe.
"The situation is not completely hopeless, however," said Dr. Cantor. "Therapists with training and experience working with people attracted to children are keenly aware of the delicate legal situation that both they and their clients are in. A good therapist—a licensed therapist, please—will begin the very first session by outlining exactly what they must report and what they may not report."
So long as there is no specific child in specific danger—so long as you don't have children (please don't), CWIA, and don't work with children (please don't)—your therapist is required to keep whatever information you share confidential.
"CWIA should ask questions about confidentiality before disclosing anything to a therapist," said Dr. Cantor. "He can ask these questions over the phone before making an appointment or even revealing his name."
To find a therapist, CWIA, you can contact—anonymously—the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/request-referral).
"Although that group is primarily about services to persons who have already committed an offense," said Dr. Cantor, "the professionals in their referral network are able and willing to help people in CWIA's situation as well."
Even the few sessions you can afford will help, CWIA.
I'm a happy fiftysomething straight female sub in a D/s relationship. My Dom is my boyfriend; we present as a regular couple. We decided to take a break for several months because of some trust issues. We are now back together. While we were on our break, my adult daughter from my first marriage told me that she was happy we split up because she viewed his behavior toward me as abusive. She based this on my generally deferring to his wishes. In other words, I was behaving as his sub. She believes that I am a brainwashed abused woman who cannot break free of her abuser. She won't have anything to do with him, believing that he is not a good man. If I want to see her and the grandkids, I visit alone. There is no way I am going to tell her that we are D/s, because my private life is none of her business. Also, I don't think that picturing Grandma getting spanked with a leather belt is an image she would want seared in her brain. What can I say to her to reassure her that I am happy and not being abused?
Only Kinky
Sorry, OK, but you made your private life your daughter's business.
You don't have to tell your daughter the whole truth (leave out the leather belt), but you will have to tell her that what she witnessed--you behaving as your boyfriend's sub--was consensual role-play, not abuse. Tell her that it was never your intent to involve her or anyone else in your sex play, you thought your role-play was so subtle that no one else would ever pick up on it, and you're sorry to have to burden her with this info. But you're in a consensual D/s relationship, and what she has interpreted as abuse is just an elaborate, consensual game that you both enjoy. Promise to dial it way, way back from now on.
But you will have to come clean with, and come out to, your daughter—if only to exonerate your boyfriend, who isn't an abuser and shouldn't have to live with that stigma.
Awesome advice to Heartbroken, the woman who agreed to have a MFF threesome on the condition that her husband not engage in PIV intercourse with their third. You told her husband that his inability to respect his wife's ground rules had probably screwed him out of any opportunity to have PIV sex with other women in the future. I'm in a nonmonogamous marriage. We started off with MFF threesomes, but I gave my husband the "no penis in her vagina" rule. He followed it to a T until I gave him the go-ahead. Now we both screw other people. If my husband had messed up the first time, though, we never would have gotten this far.
Woman Over Wisconsin
Thanks for sharing, WOW.
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
@fakedansavage on Twitter
1
So did everyone else picture their own grandma gettin' spanking with a leather belt?
Just me?
Right. I'll let myself out.
jill
http://inbedwithmarriedwomen.blogspot.co…
Just me?
Right. I'll let myself out.
jill
http://inbedwithmarriedwomen.blogspot.co…
2
CWIA: You really, really, really need to consider having yourself castrated. Will it take away your sex drive? Yes. But it'll make it less likely that you'll want to fuck kids. Small price to pay for safety, yes?
3
Does Only Kinky's Dom realize he was roleplaying? Or is he actually abusive and she just has amazing coping skills.
4
I'm a regular SLOG commenter who's not gonna use my regular handle for this comment.
Dan, RE: your first letter, you are a brave, brave writer for tackling this issue & showing some compassion for people like this who have nowhere else to turn.
To CWIA/LW #1: I dated a man who was a GSP (gold star pedophile) for 5 years. Didn't know he was at first; we were able to maintain a normal - a little kinky, no age roleplay - sex life until about almost-4 years in. But we'd fight when it came to greater intimacy, we couldn't live together, etc. & one day I told him, you need to level with me or I'm gone..& he did. It seemed clear he's struck out socially when he was super young, & was traumatized by an abusive stepmom, & so his longing just kind of froze there, at the age he was when that happened.
After a week apart to sort through it all & some tears, I stood by him. He had never (& would never) acted on his desires & clearly was in the process of trying to rewire himself. I have a very adult shape, the opposite of prepubescent. We agreed he'd get some confidential counseling & try again.
He'd reached out & not had his trust betrayed, but he couldn't go the rest of the distance. He never got professional help & caved in to his depression. We broke up.
Rather than get the help he needed, he now lives w/ a roommate & doesn't date. He's a dear person, kind, bright, etc. If he had any contact with young children I'd feel like I had to tell his family, but he doesn't. So he's safe, but sad & lonely.
Don't let this happen to you. Don't be him, so scared of therapy, of someone judging you, that you never get the help you need to lead a happy & fulfilled life. Good for you for finally taking a chance & asking for some guidance: follow through. Take all the legal cautionary steps outlined above, keep yourself away from young boys & check your head. You can re-route your drive with the right help. I believe this, I started to see it happen in my ex. It was, when he was trying, as if the weight of the world was lifted from his shoulders.
I don't think castration is the only answer.
I know the loins want what they want, but try switching out your own fantasies & porn when you masturbate. Age the objects of your fantasies, or, you don't get to get off.
Stop hating yourself.
Want to change more than anything.
I wish you luck & strength.
More...
Dan, RE: your first letter, you are a brave, brave writer for tackling this issue & showing some compassion for people like this who have nowhere else to turn.
To CWIA/LW #1: I dated a man who was a GSP (gold star pedophile) for 5 years. Didn't know he was at first; we were able to maintain a normal - a little kinky, no age roleplay - sex life until about almost-4 years in. But we'd fight when it came to greater intimacy, we couldn't live together, etc. & one day I told him, you need to level with me or I'm gone..& he did. It seemed clear he's struck out socially when he was super young, & was traumatized by an abusive stepmom, & so his longing just kind of froze there, at the age he was when that happened.
After a week apart to sort through it all & some tears, I stood by him. He had never (& would never) acted on his desires & clearly was in the process of trying to rewire himself. I have a very adult shape, the opposite of prepubescent. We agreed he'd get some confidential counseling & try again.
He'd reached out & not had his trust betrayed, but he couldn't go the rest of the distance. He never got professional help & caved in to his depression. We broke up.
Rather than get the help he needed, he now lives w/ a roommate & doesn't date. He's a dear person, kind, bright, etc. If he had any contact with young children I'd feel like I had to tell his family, but he doesn't. So he's safe, but sad & lonely.
Don't let this happen to you. Don't be him, so scared of therapy, of someone judging you, that you never get the help you need to lead a happy & fulfilled life. Good for you for finally taking a chance & asking for some guidance: follow through. Take all the legal cautionary steps outlined above, keep yourself away from young boys & check your head. You can re-route your drive with the right help. I believe this, I started to see it happen in my ex. It was, when he was trying, as if the weight of the world was lifted from his shoulders.
I don't think castration is the only answer.
I know the loins want what they want, but try switching out your own fantasies & porn when you masturbate. Age the objects of your fantasies, or, you don't get to get off.
Stop hating yourself.
Want to change more than anything.
I wish you luck & strength.
5
@2 --
IIRC, castration actually has very little productive effect (where "productive" is defined as "making the person in question less likely to molest children"). At the moment, the best option even for the ideal case (i.e. a pedophile who recognizes that sexual attraction to children is a problem and shouldn't be acted on, and who's willing to seek therapy to resolve those problems or, failing that, at least develop strategies to avoid acting on pedophilic urges, e.g. CWIA) is less than ideal -- it's about finding strategies of therapy to prevent potential offenders from becoming actual offenders. We don't have a cure yet -- but it looks like therapy and coaching are currently more effective than castration at preventing a shift to "actual offender" status. (And for any aspiring psychologists who are reading -- if you can, in the course of your research and/or clinical career, find a reliable way to keep potential child molesters from becoming actual child molesters, you'll be providing a great service to humanity. Just saying.)
IIRC, castration actually has very little productive effect (where "productive" is defined as "making the person in question less likely to molest children"). At the moment, the best option even for the ideal case (i.e. a pedophile who recognizes that sexual attraction to children is a problem and shouldn't be acted on, and who's willing to seek therapy to resolve those problems or, failing that, at least develop strategies to avoid acting on pedophilic urges, e.g. CWIA) is less than ideal -- it's about finding strategies of therapy to prevent potential offenders from becoming actual offenders. We don't have a cure yet -- but it looks like therapy and coaching are currently more effective than castration at preventing a shift to "actual offender" status. (And for any aspiring psychologists who are reading -- if you can, in the course of your research and/or clinical career, find a reliable way to keep potential child molesters from becoming actual child molesters, you'll be providing a great service to humanity. Just saying.)
7
CWIA's letter makes me sad. Here's a man who needs help, but our system can do nothing until he offends. As society has become more rabid about children's safety, we have cut off what little aid men like him must have to not harm children.
Yet for all of society's rabidity today, almost no Catholic priest pedophiles are prosecuted, some (many?) innocent men's lives have been destroyed by witch hunts, young men who've been convicted of statutory rape are ruined even if it was consensual, and men who have paid for their crimes are in a type of Scarlet Letter prison for the rest of their lives that (to me) violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Why can't the greatest country on earth figure out a reasonable solution that both protects children AND provides help to potential offenders before they offend? Doesn't seem that hard, yet here we are. Pathetic.
Yet for all of society's rabidity today, almost no Catholic priest pedophiles are prosecuted, some (many?) innocent men's lives have been destroyed by witch hunts, young men who've been convicted of statutory rape are ruined even if it was consensual, and men who have paid for their crimes are in a type of Scarlet Letter prison for the rest of their lives that (to me) violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Why can't the greatest country on earth figure out a reasonable solution that both protects children AND provides help to potential offenders before they offend? Doesn't seem that hard, yet here we are. Pathetic.
8
@6, re @2: The idea of CWIA---or anyone--- getting castrated doesn't sound like a "small price to pay" to me, either, and I'm a het female!
@7: I agree-- it is sad!
WhewEEEEEEEE! I'm going to have one wild party when my reproductive years are finally and mercifully over!
@7: I agree-- it is sad!
WhewEEEEEEEE! I'm going to have one wild party when my reproductive years are finally and mercifully over!
11
Dan, what a compassionate, humane reply to CWIA.
CWIA, best of luck to you, and I hope you recognize what a brave achievement it is for you to make it this far.
CWIA, best of luck to you, and I hope you recognize what a brave achievement it is for you to make it this far.
12
CWIA, a family physician I know once worked with someone like you who agreed to be chemically castrated. Between the medication and therapy, the urge was reduced to almost nothing. Worth looking into.
13
Dan, excellent answer to CWIA, not so much to OK. Sooner or later Dan, you are going to have to accept the fact that just because something seems like kinky sex-play to you, it doesn't mean that's what it is to the parties involved. Almost everyone who lives in a 24/7 D/s relationship doesn't view it as "role play", to them it's simply a matter of being themselves, and you reducing their way of life to "sex play" is derogatory and condescending and makes you sound like a bit of a jackass. I know you can do better then that.
14
@4, I read your story with the greatest interest, and you indeed offer CWIA some hope. With some luck he will find inspiration in it.
@9(TheLuciferPerson), I think what is really commendable in CWIA's moral strength is that he is not trying to deceive himself at this point. When you have a desire that is considered despicable by society, avoiding it is a first idea that most people afflicted with this desire will try it. But as time goes by, this gets more and more difficult. The strongest temptation, slowly building up almost impossible to resist, is to lie to oneself and believe there is 'some situation' in which one's desires can be indulged without harm. All kinds of ideas and rationalizations will come to mind ('society is wrong! this isn't really always harmful! I will be realllyyy careful when I do it, there'll be no harm! I'll follow Dan Savage's campsite rule! There must be some way of doing it!'). And as your hunger builds up, the idea of not raping someone -- which when you're OK with yourself is a no-brainer -- begins to become more attractive ('it won't be rape rape! some kids already know about sex and liked it! I've read about this 8-year-old who masturbates! he/she will enjoy it too! I'll be nice! we'll start by playing games, he/she will enjoy it, hey maybe he/she will want to do it again! that's not rape rape is it?'). As things get worse, you start projecting your own desires on others, and children will kinda seem to be asking for it already, every time they do something that has a sexual co-text (and in our culture this is not so difficult to find: all children have to do to sound vaguely sexual is immitate grownups).
It is indeed awfully hard. I really pity CWIA, and I hope he'll somehow manage to have the strength not to ever harm a child.
But will he ever be happy in his future relationships?
Why should a merciful god create people with desires for love, sex and intimacy of a kind that makes sure they will never happen? I prefer to think that this is not so, that things (societies and/or desires) can change. But I really don't know.
More...
@9(TheLuciferPerson), I think what is really commendable in CWIA's moral strength is that he is not trying to deceive himself at this point. When you have a desire that is considered despicable by society, avoiding it is a first idea that most people afflicted with this desire will try it. But as time goes by, this gets more and more difficult. The strongest temptation, slowly building up almost impossible to resist, is to lie to oneself and believe there is 'some situation' in which one's desires can be indulged without harm. All kinds of ideas and rationalizations will come to mind ('society is wrong! this isn't really always harmful! I will be realllyyy careful when I do it, there'll be no harm! I'll follow Dan Savage's campsite rule! There must be some way of doing it!'). And as your hunger builds up, the idea of not raping someone -- which when you're OK with yourself is a no-brainer -- begins to become more attractive ('it won't be rape rape! some kids already know about sex and liked it! I've read about this 8-year-old who masturbates! he/she will enjoy it too! I'll be nice! we'll start by playing games, he/she will enjoy it, hey maybe he/she will want to do it again! that's not rape rape is it?'). As things get worse, you start projecting your own desires on others, and children will kinda seem to be asking for it already, every time they do something that has a sexual co-text (and in our culture this is not so difficult to find: all children have to do to sound vaguely sexual is immitate grownups).
It is indeed awfully hard. I really pity CWIA, and I hope he'll somehow manage to have the strength not to ever harm a child.
But will he ever be happy in his future relationships?
Why should a merciful god create people with desires for love, sex and intimacy of a kind that makes sure they will never happen? I prefer to think that this is not so, that things (societies and/or desires) can change. But I really don't know.
15
@13, sure, and that is true (to some D/s relationships; you're also overgeneralizing here, since there are plenty of D/s people who do view their D/s as games and fun, not 'who they truly are'). But I think what Dan was trying to get at is that a good D/s relationship is not really abusive, and this is not easy to explain to non-D/s people unless there seems to be 'fun-'n'-games' somewhere for non-D/s people to relate to.
In the case of OK, now that her daughter has seen something but drawn the wrong conclusion, this indeed has to be changed -- or else OK's boyfriend will carry the stigma (at least in the eyes of OK's daughter) and OK will have to see her grandchildren alone. So I think Dan is right: her only choice is to be sincere with her daughter and start a conversation that begins somewhere around 'fun-'n'-games' and may go on (or not) towards 'true selves.' Perhaps even including her boyfriend in the conversation.
In the case of OK, now that her daughter has seen something but drawn the wrong conclusion, this indeed has to be changed -- or else OK's boyfriend will carry the stigma (at least in the eyes of OK's daughter) and OK will have to see her grandchildren alone. So I think Dan is right: her only choice is to be sincere with her daughter and start a conversation that begins somewhere around 'fun-'n'-games' and may go on (or not) towards 'true selves.' Perhaps even including her boyfriend in the conversation.
16
I LOVE *most* of the responses to CWIA! I mean it REALLY really really does take a whole hell of a lot to control ANY urge. Cocaine, xbox, booze, kids..any predilection.
DO NOT get castrated because somebody knew someone else's cousin's sister's bbf's neighbor's doctor that is just crazy. Follow Savage's sage advice or move to Canada.
Best of luck!,
A child of sexual abuse
DO NOT get castrated because somebody knew someone else's cousin's sister's bbf's neighbor's doctor that is just crazy. Follow Savage's sage advice or move to Canada.
Best of luck!,
A child of sexual abuse
17
@13 It's all very well, but people who witness these exchanges should not be expected to just understand what's going on. If you don't want to explain yourselves to anyone, you really have to tone it down in front of other people.
18
I don't think Dr. Cantor understand US mandatory reporting laws. I am a licensed psychologist, and I have practiced in 3 states. I am required to report abuse if I have reasonable suspicion that it has occurred, or if my client identifies a particular person he or she plans to abuse. I may NOT report a person for having general urges to abuse a particular class of people. Please don't dissuade people from getting help by misrepresenting what the laws are.
21
When a religious woman is submissive to her husband, everyone says she's being brainwashed. Why is this that different? The religious woman will tell you she's happy.
22
Seconding #18 (Dr. M)-- I think Dr. Cantor has some wrong ideas about mandatory reporting in the US. In both states where I've been licensed as a psychologist (Texas and Massachusetts) you're legally required to report if a specific child has been abused, or if you're afraid for the safety of a specific child. If someone just says they feel attracted to children, but hasn't acted on it and there are no specific children at risk, we're REQUIRED to keep that CONFIDENTIAL (unless we're subpoena'd by a judge). A psychotherapist may have his/her own biases, so may be more or less helpful, but should NOT automatically report someone just for saying they are sexually attracted to children.
That said... it may, unfortunately, take a little bit of shopping around to find a therapist with whom you can work on this. You want to find someone with whom you feel fairly comfortable. I second Dr. Cantor's recommendation for referrals, and the idea of checking in with the therapist about their views over the phone before coming in for a first session-- that can save time, money, and discouragement.
Very best of luck! I'm not sure that there are any real ways to change a hard-wired sexual desire, but I know there are ways of coming to better terms with yourself, overcoming self-hatred, learning strategies for easier self-control, and making your healthy adult relationships stronger and more satisfying.
That said... it may, unfortunately, take a little bit of shopping around to find a therapist with whom you can work on this. You want to find someone with whom you feel fairly comfortable. I second Dr. Cantor's recommendation for referrals, and the idea of checking in with the therapist about their views over the phone before coming in for a first session-- that can save time, money, and discouragement.
Very best of luck! I'm not sure that there are any real ways to change a hard-wired sexual desire, but I know there are ways of coming to better terms with yourself, overcoming self-hatred, learning strategies for easier self-control, and making your healthy adult relationships stronger and more satisfying.
23
Okay, rereading it, Dr. Cantor said it correctly, my apologies. I just want to emphasize his latter point-- that just being attracted to children, when you don't have children in your care, is NOT something a therapist must report, and IS something a therapist should keep confidential.
24
How is the advice to CWIA any different from the religious right's advice to gay men everywhere to get therapy to change their orientation so that they'll become attracted to women, or if that's not possible, to be able to live with a woman without actively seeking the company of men, or if that's not possible, just to abandon the "homosexual lifestyle" and stay away from the temptation of having sex with men?
25
@24, it's not really different, but the consequences are.
The problem with the religious right's advice to gay men is that gay men do not inherently scar and traumatize those they choose to sleep with and form relationships with. They demonize an orientation that is, by all evidence available, harmless, which shames them and encourages more gay people to stay in the closet--all for no reason. It hurts people unnecessarily. I'm sure you know this.
Telling pedophiles to steer clear of children and maintain other relationships perhaps saves the lives of dozens or, in awful cases, hundreds of children.
So that's what's different.
The problem with the religious right's advice to gay men is that gay men do not inherently scar and traumatize those they choose to sleep with and form relationships with. They demonize an orientation that is, by all evidence available, harmless, which shames them and encourages more gay people to stay in the closet--all for no reason. It hurts people unnecessarily. I'm sure you know this.
Telling pedophiles to steer clear of children and maintain other relationships perhaps saves the lives of dozens or, in awful cases, hundreds of children.
So that's what's different.
26
I can't believe WOW thinks Dan gave "awesome advice" to Heartbroken, who, IMO, got what she asked for by encouraging her husband to get naked with another woman and then felt "betrayed" by his penetrating the woman after he told his wife he wouldn't. It never would have happened if she hadn't set him up.
Plus, Dan didn't give her ANY advice; instead, he inappropriately and misguidedly wrote an endless ranting diatribe to the husband, who never even asked Dan for his advice or opinion. Just ridiculous.
Plus, Dan didn't give her ANY advice; instead, he inappropriately and misguidedly wrote an endless ranting diatribe to the husband, who never even asked Dan for his advice or opinion. Just ridiculous.
27
The difference, Crinoline (@24) is bloody obvious:
Gay men seek consensual sex and love with adults. Pedophiles by their nature and the law are not seeking consensual sex. If they act on their desires, they risk doing lasting emotional and physical harm to the children they abuse. If you see that as an inconsequential distinction, then there is something very wrong with your moral compass, not Dan's.
Gay men seek consensual sex and love with adults. Pedophiles by their nature and the law are not seeking consensual sex. If they act on their desires, they risk doing lasting emotional and physical harm to the children they abuse. If you see that as an inconsequential distinction, then there is something very wrong with your moral compass, not Dan's.
28
okay... #9/#10 just offered up her seemingly pre-pubescent body and email address to the guy trying to NOT want to have sex with kids... Is this REALLY the forum for that??
29
@24: It's different because fucking children is actually wrong, particularly in a society that gives adolescents and children so little autonomy over their sexuality. Fucking individuals of the same sex as you who consent, on the other hand, is okay.
30
@24 I can see the similarity -- the advice to subvert one's natural given urges -- but there is a difference. In the situation you posed, the other party is assumed to be a fully consenting adult, whereas in a situation like CWIA's, the other party is a child. I think there's a significant difference in trying to keep someone from engaging in sex with an on-board adult of their own gender and trying to keep a person from having sex with a child, i.e. a person who is not physically, mentally, or emotionally mature enough yet to give consent. It's all about consent.
31
@24 (Crinoline) -- The difference should be obvious, but since it's not I will spell it out for you: children are too young to consent to sexual activity and therefore can only be the victim in any sexual encounter. No such concern exists with homosexual conduct between grown men or women.
32
Dan, thank you for being brave enough to address CWIA's taboo issue. It takes balls, and not many sex columnists have them. I really, really hope one day everybody will just chill out and realize being attracted to children isn't a choice: it's a burden.
@24 (Crinoline) > The difference lies here: men can give consent and enjoy sexual intercourse with other men. Children can't: that's why having sex with children is morally wrong. Trying to change CWIA's sexual preferences (if it is possible, which I highly doubt) will only make him happier, and avoid, well, children being raped.
@24 (Crinoline) > The difference lies here: men can give consent and enjoy sexual intercourse with other men. Children can't: that's why having sex with children is morally wrong. Trying to change CWIA's sexual preferences (if it is possible, which I highly doubt) will only make him happier, and avoid, well, children being raped.
33
Crinoline (#24),
It's different because gay adults are fully autonomous; children are not. Encouraging gay people to seek therapy to "straighten" them up is wrong because two gay adults in a consensual relationship do not infringe upon anyone's autonomy. On the other hand, when an adult makes advances on a child, that child is not fully autonomous and capable to accepting or rejecting these advances.
It's different because gay adults are fully autonomous; children are not. Encouraging gay people to seek therapy to "straighten" them up is wrong because two gay adults in a consensual relationship do not infringe upon anyone's autonomy. On the other hand, when an adult makes advances on a child, that child is not fully autonomous and capable to accepting or rejecting these advances.
34
9/10 could be a cop engaged in a sting operation to capture child molesters. Xie could have seen CWIA's letter and posted to entrap him.
35
@24: Okay, people have explained why acting on sexual urges is different if the agent is a gay adult who looks for love and consensual sex with another same-sex adult than it is if the agent (whether gay or straight) is attracted to children. No question: there's a huge difference insofar as consequences go, and while trying to "convert" a gay person to hetero-ness is wrong, based on hate and intolerance, and misguided because not really possible, we would all agree (even the gold star pedophiles like CWIA) that the goal of a "conversion" of a pedophile into someone who has sexual interest only in adults is a worthy one.
So, as #25 puts it, the consequences are what's different.
But I think the question was meant to get at the impossibility of "re-wiring" someone's sexual orientation. If it doesn't work in "ex-gay" therapy, how can it work in "ex-pedo" therapy?
It seems un-doable. I think trying to redirect sexual attraction is a great hope, but probably an unrealizable one.
And the alternatives--find an adult partner with a youthful body type and facial appearance who knows about your interest and is willing or even likes to age play; white-knuckle it and hope to god you will never succumb to those urges; chemically castrate yourself--are all pretty extreme, offering varying degrees of success.
Poor CWIA is only in his late 20s. Should he really go through the rest of his life with no sexual desire? Is he going to be able to satisfy himself with an adult who presents as younger (and what happens as his partner ages? Does he have to keep finding new young-looking people to date? Can he marry? What will be the odds of a 20-something who looks like a pubescent wanting to date him when he's in his mid-50s?) Can he really be expected to grit his teeth and "just not do it" his whole life?
What do people do who have unrealizable fetishes, that is, fetishes/fantasies that can't be fulfilled because they're unreal (giant women, centaurs, mermaids, etc.)? How do they channel their desires into more realizable sex? Surely they must have "normal" sex with "normal" partners (oh, Sloggers are going to take me apart for that!), use the kind of porn they like (a BIG problem in CWIA's case, as it is illegal and unethical to make or have), and try to find partners who agree to a little role-playing.
Would some combo of this work for CWIA and others like him?
More...
So, as #25 puts it, the consequences are what's different.
But I think the question was meant to get at the impossibility of "re-wiring" someone's sexual orientation. If it doesn't work in "ex-gay" therapy, how can it work in "ex-pedo" therapy?
It seems un-doable. I think trying to redirect sexual attraction is a great hope, but probably an unrealizable one.
And the alternatives--find an adult partner with a youthful body type and facial appearance who knows about your interest and is willing or even likes to age play; white-knuckle it and hope to god you will never succumb to those urges; chemically castrate yourself--are all pretty extreme, offering varying degrees of success.
Poor CWIA is only in his late 20s. Should he really go through the rest of his life with no sexual desire? Is he going to be able to satisfy himself with an adult who presents as younger (and what happens as his partner ages? Does he have to keep finding new young-looking people to date? Can he marry? What will be the odds of a 20-something who looks like a pubescent wanting to date him when he's in his mid-50s?) Can he really be expected to grit his teeth and "just not do it" his whole life?
What do people do who have unrealizable fetishes, that is, fetishes/fantasies that can't be fulfilled because they're unreal (giant women, centaurs, mermaids, etc.)? How do they channel their desires into more realizable sex? Surely they must have "normal" sex with "normal" partners (oh, Sloggers are going to take me apart for that!), use the kind of porn they like (a BIG problem in CWIA's case, as it is illegal and unethical to make or have), and try to find partners who agree to a little role-playing.
Would some combo of this work for CWIA and others like him?
36
I have to applaud Dan's advice too to CWIA. I too am attracted to young boys but would never act on it. I just don't put myself in the position to be around them alone. I feel I could control myself, but would never want to test it.
Luckily, I am also very much attracted to adult men too and am able to satisfy any urges I may have in a legal and appropriate way.
Luckily, I am also very much attracted to adult men too and am able to satisfy any urges I may have in a legal and appropriate way.
37
@35 Thank you for that. I didn't know if I was misremembering the kind of poster Crinoline is but that question and the barrage of attacking responses all seemed wrong to me. Like that wasn't what Crinoline meant and we were all missing something.
And now, yeah, that is a really interesting question.
Ooooh, I think it's a bad, bad idea to try to approach pedophilia this way. The difference here is that the centaur fetishist can do everything possible to satisfy and, if that just whet's his appetite, OH WELL. If the little taste only makes her more hungry, that's just an oopsie and you're at a dead end.
Not so with pedophilia. It seems like you would want to avoid even masturbating to your own internal fantasies about it.
And this not just because it might make you want more. It also might acclimate you to the idea of fucking a child. CWIA finds that idea horrifying, a reaction he should protect.
And now, yeah, that is a really interesting question.
Ooooh, I think it's a bad, bad idea to try to approach pedophilia this way. The difference here is that the centaur fetishist can do everything possible to satisfy and, if that just whet's his appetite, OH WELL. If the little taste only makes her more hungry, that's just an oopsie and you're at a dead end.
Not so with pedophilia. It seems like you would want to avoid even masturbating to your own internal fantasies about it.
And this not just because it might make you want more. It also might acclimate you to the idea of fucking a child. CWIA finds that idea horrifying, a reaction he should protect.
38
OK appears not to recognize her own inconsistency:
"In other words, I was behaving as his sub."
"There is no way I am going to tell her that we are D/s, because my private life is none of her business."
Mr Savage correctly picked up on this.
What the letter fudges is whether the couple was just acting naturally and the daughter correctly interpreted "abusive" behaviour that happens to be consensual, whether the daughter is an alarmist who overreached but struck lucky, or where in between the truth falls. Were OK and the BF trying to tone themselves down in her presence? Mr Savage's suggestion offers the premise that they were.
OK seems to want a magic verbal formula that will, without telling the truth, convince her daughter she isn't being abused despite evidence to the contrary. I'm inclined to hope that no such formula exists. If it did, and truly abused women got hold of it, even if it only worked half so well for them...
On the question of presentation, What We Do versus Who We Are, if it's presented as Who We Are, it seems likely that OK will be visiting her grandchildren alone for quite some time, as that would basically be announcing that they'd likely model apparently abusive behaviour. What We Do, which need not go into full detail, at least leaves room for the daughter to counter with ground rules for Acceptable Conduct, and then they can hammer things out from there.
"In other words, I was behaving as his sub."
"There is no way I am going to tell her that we are D/s, because my private life is none of her business."
Mr Savage correctly picked up on this.
What the letter fudges is whether the couple was just acting naturally and the daughter correctly interpreted "abusive" behaviour that happens to be consensual, whether the daughter is an alarmist who overreached but struck lucky, or where in between the truth falls. Were OK and the BF trying to tone themselves down in her presence? Mr Savage's suggestion offers the premise that they were.
OK seems to want a magic verbal formula that will, without telling the truth, convince her daughter she isn't being abused despite evidence to the contrary. I'm inclined to hope that no such formula exists. If it did, and truly abused women got hold of it, even if it only worked half so well for them...
On the question of presentation, What We Do versus Who We Are, if it's presented as Who We Are, it seems likely that OK will be visiting her grandchildren alone for quite some time, as that would basically be announcing that they'd likely model apparently abusive behaviour. What We Do, which need not go into full detail, at least leaves room for the daughter to counter with ground rules for Acceptable Conduct, and then they can hammer things out from there.
40
@26. Too harsh. Dan's responses, especially the rants, are usually aimed more at the dozens or hundreds or thousands of readers in similar situations, or who find the situation interesting, than at the Letter Writer proper. So his rant was aimed at readers contemplating a three-way but are unsure how boundaries are drawn in such situations, and what the consequences of fucking up those boundaries can be, than to Heartbroken.
I enjoy the column more, now that I accept that Dan is writing primarily to convey his ideas and to entertain and educate his readers. Helping the specific letter writers is secondary.
I enjoy the column more, now that I accept that Dan is writing primarily to convey his ideas and to entertain and educate his readers. Helping the specific letter writers is secondary.
42
I'd like to point out that not all child abusers are pedophiles. Per the Mayo Clinic, 45% prefer physically mature sexual partners, but are targeting children because children are weak, and they are predatory assholes. This brings me to my second essential point. Pedophiles who abuse children are ALSO predatory assholes. Just having a heinous sexual desire does not mean you are impelled to act on it- it's still a choice. And that's why, if I put myself in CWIA's position, I would consider castration "a small price," not to protect children, but to ease the burden on myself. Because I fully expect people like CWIA to spend the rest of their lives doing whatever they needed to do to avoid abusing children. (That's not a question, CWIA. You are definitely not going to hurt any children because you have clearly made the choice not to be a predatory asshole.) But if CWIA wants some chemical help to make that struggle less acute, that's his choice. Perhaps anti-depressants (with libido-lowering side effects) could be easier to obtain then chemical castration (or actual castration, which sounds like a big logistical problem).
Also, someone mentioned that castration does not have an effect on recidivism in child abuse offenders. I submit that's because while ATTRACTION to children is linked to libido, the tendency to actually hurt them is linked to predatory assholedom, and predatory assholedom is not located in balls or dick. It's like rape of adults- rape is not unrelated to sexuality and attraction, but sexuality and attraction does not cause rape. It's the will to dominate and hurt laid over sexuality and attraction. Take away sexuality and attraction from a committed rapist, and that person will still have the will to dominate and hurt- hence the recognized issue of the impotent rapist.
More...
Also, someone mentioned that castration does not have an effect on recidivism in child abuse offenders. I submit that's because while ATTRACTION to children is linked to libido, the tendency to actually hurt them is linked to predatory assholedom, and predatory assholedom is not located in balls or dick. It's like rape of adults- rape is not unrelated to sexuality and attraction, but sexuality and attraction does not cause rape. It's the will to dominate and hurt laid over sexuality and attraction. Take away sexuality and attraction from a committed rapist, and that person will still have the will to dominate and hurt- hence the recognized issue of the impotent rapist.
43
@22's concerns about mandatory reporting were what I was thinking, too- I'm currently studying to be a counselor and here in IL, it is being stressed that identifiable, immediate harm is when reporting is mandatory.
Still, is there any way for a network to be set up for GSPs of licensed therapists who are willing to work with clients like CWIA?
Dan- I see that you're going to be the keynote at ASCA in June (and I so, so, so wish I had the $ to go!)- what about talking to them about this? They could create professional development materials on acknowledging the existence of GSPs and the importance of giving them the support they need to continue to be GSPs. Fucking hell, if any group of counselors should be immediately and inherently invested in helping make this happen, it should be those of us in schools.
Still, is there any way for a network to be set up for GSPs of licensed therapists who are willing to work with clients like CWIA?
Dan- I see that you're going to be the keynote at ASCA in June (and I so, so, so wish I had the $ to go!)- what about talking to them about this? They could create professional development materials on acknowledging the existence of GSPs and the importance of giving them the support they need to continue to be GSPs. Fucking hell, if any group of counselors should be immediately and inherently invested in helping make this happen, it should be those of us in schools.
44
@26, It never would have happened if he remembered that he'd agreed to not do that, and then not done it. He has ultimate control over his penis and where it goes.
She didn't ask for advice, per se; she asked if her feelings were valid. Well, Dan sure did validate 'em.
She didn't ask for advice, per se; she asked if her feelings were valid. Well, Dan sure did validate 'em.
45
I am entirely with Dan on his "gold star pedophile" theory.
As a gay man who is not a pedophile, I have often wondered what it would be like to live with that particular branch of "sexual orientation" and shuddered to think how lucky I am that I am not so inflicted. I know fropm experience how many people view my sexual orientation (gay) as sick and immoral, and I can just imagine what it must be like to be a pedophile.
I have always believed that pedophiles who do not act on their attractions, and maybe even some that do, deserve more sympathy that scorn. I one had a friend who actually admitted to many of his friends that he was attracted to young guys. He "solved" his problem by simply dating a guy in his late 20's who looked like a teenager. His boyfriend wasn't very good looking; in fact, he was skinny and short and baby-faced, and had bad skin like a teen. It sure worked for him.
I have no idea if they're still together, but I remember thinking he was lucky to find someone who could legally fufill his fantasies.
I just think many gay men who discuss pedophilia and say, "That's sick, creepy and disgusting" are rather hypocritical, when there are coutless straight people who think the same thing about them.
As a gay man who is not a pedophile, I have often wondered what it would be like to live with that particular branch of "sexual orientation" and shuddered to think how lucky I am that I am not so inflicted. I know fropm experience how many people view my sexual orientation (gay) as sick and immoral, and I can just imagine what it must be like to be a pedophile.
I have always believed that pedophiles who do not act on their attractions, and maybe even some that do, deserve more sympathy that scorn. I one had a friend who actually admitted to many of his friends that he was attracted to young guys. He "solved" his problem by simply dating a guy in his late 20's who looked like a teenager. His boyfriend wasn't very good looking; in fact, he was skinny and short and baby-faced, and had bad skin like a teen. It sure worked for him.
I have no idea if they're still together, but I remember thinking he was lucky to find someone who could legally fufill his fantasies.
I just think many gay men who discuss pedophilia and say, "That's sick, creepy and disgusting" are rather hypocritical, when there are coutless straight people who think the same thing about them.
46
@35 I agree that the US ban even on fake child porn creates a problem. The giant-women fetishists I know rely heavily on porn, as do rape fetishists. I personally think that people who are into children should be allowed to look at fake child porn (drawings, CGI, etc). But I believe that in the US this is just as illegal as porn made with real children.
@37, I disagree. Rape fetishists read rape porn, they role play, but they don't generally graduate to real rape. There's no reason to think that child-fetishists would graduate from cartoon-porn to abuse (here I'm agreeing with @42).
@38 agreed, good points. But since the daughter is willing to have (apparently abused) Grandma around her children, she doesn't seem to have a complete ban on people in problematic relationships. She just has a ban on actual abusers. So she may be willing to allow them to come over together, once she realizes it's consensual and joyful (and assuming they agree to tone it down around her and her children -- no collars, no kneeling, etc.)
I also think OK should praise her daughter for having the guts to speak up about what she was seeing.
And I recommend offering her some literature, such as:
- John Warren's The Loving Dominant
- Miller and Devon's Screw the Roses, Send Me the Thorns
- William Brame's Different Loving: The World of Sexual Dominance
@37, I disagree. Rape fetishists read rape porn, they role play, but they don't generally graduate to real rape. There's no reason to think that child-fetishists would graduate from cartoon-porn to abuse (here I'm agreeing with @42).
@38 agreed, good points. But since the daughter is willing to have (apparently abused) Grandma around her children, she doesn't seem to have a complete ban on people in problematic relationships. She just has a ban on actual abusers. So she may be willing to allow them to come over together, once she realizes it's consensual and joyful (and assuming they agree to tone it down around her and her children -- no collars, no kneeling, etc.)
I also think OK should praise her daughter for having the guts to speak up about what she was seeing.
And I recommend offering her some literature, such as:
- John Warren's The Loving Dominant
- Miller and Devon's Screw the Roses, Send Me the Thorns
- William Brame's Different Loving: The World of Sexual Dominance
48
Tech-savvy-at-risk-youth, please delete @47 for making unhelpful suggestions to people vulnerable to such suggestions.
51
I do not think the mandatory reporting laws are too strict... after all, if CWIA worked with children or had children, that *should* be reported. It's not like he will get reported for just having those desires, after all... Unfortunately I think that the bulk of CWIA's question went unanswered: how to find free/cheap treatment in the US.
Chemical castration actually does drastically reduce recidivism rates for pedophiles. And for those who think it's too high a price, if CWIA is only/mostly attracted to children, there is never going to be an outlet for his sexual desires, anyway. And what you don't want, you can't really miss.
Chemical castration actually does drastically reduce recidivism rates for pedophiles. And for those who think it's too high a price, if CWIA is only/mostly attracted to children, there is never going to be an outlet for his sexual desires, anyway. And what you don't want, you can't really miss.
53
Poor CWIA - as Dan points out, being burdened with sexual desire that could actually be realized but is both extremely unethical and illegal to realize must be terrible. Kudos to you, CWIA, for having enough empathy/social conscience to not shatter the lives of others for your own pleasure. Maybe just knowing that everyone on the planet doesn't hate you on the basis of thought crime (we think that your actions are what's important) will be of some help. I wish you the best in finding effective treatment.
@9/10: While you intentions may be the best possible, you might well be baiting predators by posting your e-mail address publicly like that (while in an ideal world it should be perfectly safe for anyone to publicly post contact information, we don't live in an ideal world, and it makes sense to take reasonable precautions). That could be dangerous to both you and others. Assuming a proper forum even does exist (navigating ethics around teenage sexual agency is seriously problematic in contemporary USA culture and law), this really isn't it.
@9/10: While you intentions may be the best possible, you might well be baiting predators by posting your e-mail address publicly like that (while in an ideal world it should be perfectly safe for anyone to publicly post contact information, we don't live in an ideal world, and it makes sense to take reasonable precautions). That could be dangerous to both you and others. Assuming a proper forum even does exist (navigating ethics around teenage sexual agency is seriously problematic in contemporary USA culture and law), this really isn't it.
54
I still don't understand why it's cool to consent to abuse so long as it's for sex play but if my spouse and I decide it's appropriate for him to beat my ass for not doing the dishes or cleaning his home properly that's a ticket to law intervention.
Abuse is abuse, even if it's to get sexual pleasure, and it's exactly that kind of scenario Granny's talking about that got me to wonder wtf I was thinking letting people beat the hell out of me for sexual pleasure and what on earth that was coming from. I'm glad I decided it was inappropriate and took steps to change what I feel strongly was a problem rooted in psychology.
And I love how sub people will always say "oh my prediliction for getting my ass kicked to get me horny has nothing to do with my abusive childhood, which yes, I had, but... it's TOTALLY separate."
No it's not. It's really not. Get some good psychological counselling and find out why you think letting someone treat you like shit is hot. You'd be told to do that in ANY other scenario don't let the fact it brings you sexual pleasure make it okay. Lots of people have orgasms from incestual sex with parents and grandparents and that doesn't make it any more "right."
I realize my view is not popular, but it bears looking into. I have never been happier than when I learned enthusiastic passionate sex didn't have to have anything to do with humiliating me or hurting me and that I was a human worth having orgasms and that there was nothing wrong with me for enjoying sex. I wish everyone could feel it. And yes I thought I felt that way too when I found BDSM but truth is if I'm really honest during every session I never felt "joy" during, I felt like I was "getting what I deserved" and the joy came after when it ended. You know, like the honeymoon cycle in any abusive relationship.
More...
Abuse is abuse, even if it's to get sexual pleasure, and it's exactly that kind of scenario Granny's talking about that got me to wonder wtf I was thinking letting people beat the hell out of me for sexual pleasure and what on earth that was coming from. I'm glad I decided it was inappropriate and took steps to change what I feel strongly was a problem rooted in psychology.
And I love how sub people will always say "oh my prediliction for getting my ass kicked to get me horny has nothing to do with my abusive childhood, which yes, I had, but... it's TOTALLY separate."
No it's not. It's really not. Get some good psychological counselling and find out why you think letting someone treat you like shit is hot. You'd be told to do that in ANY other scenario don't let the fact it brings you sexual pleasure make it okay. Lots of people have orgasms from incestual sex with parents and grandparents and that doesn't make it any more "right."
I realize my view is not popular, but it bears looking into. I have never been happier than when I learned enthusiastic passionate sex didn't have to have anything to do with humiliating me or hurting me and that I was a human worth having orgasms and that there was nothing wrong with me for enjoying sex. I wish everyone could feel it. And yes I thought I felt that way too when I found BDSM but truth is if I'm really honest during every session I never felt "joy" during, I felt like I was "getting what I deserved" and the joy came after when it ended. You know, like the honeymoon cycle in any abusive relationship.
55
Um, if I can walk around the world all my life and not rape every person I find irresistibly attractive, then why the fuck are all the pedos saying it's so hard?
Are we seriously applauding these people for NOT RAPING when most of humanity (oh god I hope) manages not to do so?
Are we seriously applauding these people for NOT RAPING when most of humanity (oh god I hope) manages not to do so?
56
@54, for me, BDSM is like a mashup of massage, strenuous exercise and meditation: it feels good and clears my mind. Do you tell people who run marathons that they're clearly delusional for enjoying that pain and should seek therapy?
@21 I do also think that a submissive Christian can honorably choose to submit to her husband for non sexual reasons, if that's what they both want, and if children are not being physically or emotionally abused in the process.
So what's abuse? Abuse is when one person doesn't want the violence or yelling or degradation and is only sticking around for the nice-guy routine that follows. Or if the person wants bad treatment out of self-hatred, as in wendykh's experience, but that's dangerous to diagnose from the outside.
I should say that BDSM (like many things) can be addictive, and then it should be judged by whether it interferes with the person's ability to live a happy, productive life.
@21 I do also think that a submissive Christian can honorably choose to submit to her husband for non sexual reasons, if that's what they both want, and if children are not being physically or emotionally abused in the process.
So what's abuse? Abuse is when one person doesn't want the violence or yelling or degradation and is only sticking around for the nice-guy routine that follows. Or if the person wants bad treatment out of self-hatred, as in wendykh's experience, but that's dangerous to diagnose from the outside.
I should say that BDSM (like many things) can be addictive, and then it should be judged by whether it interferes with the person's ability to live a happy, productive life.
58
@54, stop projecting your own psychological issues onto other people. There are people into BDSM who have never been abused - Dan has pointed that out in the past. And even if they have been, you have no way of knowing if their penchant for BDSM is linked to it or not. You are not them. You do not and can not know what is going on in their heads, and you do not and can not know what is best for other people.
59
"There is no way I am going to tell her that we are D/s, because my private life is none of her business."
The problem is that her private life isn't exactly private. If other people are aware of the behavior (even if not to the full extent), then its not private. It would almost be like having sex in a public space, but asking people not to watch because what they're doing is private.
If any level of D/s play leaks out to the public, I believe its necessary to provide the context for the behavior. Like Dan said, you don't need to give a detailed explanation, just a general statement that its consensual role play.
Also, I wonder if the extension of the D/s dynamic beyond the bedroom to the public space was intentional or just failure to properly monitor behavior. If part of the enjoyment of the play was that the D/s behavior was in public and viewed by other people, then the daughter was being INCLUDED in their private life and deserves an explanation even moreso.
The problem is that her private life isn't exactly private. If other people are aware of the behavior (even if not to the full extent), then its not private. It would almost be like having sex in a public space, but asking people not to watch because what they're doing is private.
If any level of D/s play leaks out to the public, I believe its necessary to provide the context for the behavior. Like Dan said, you don't need to give a detailed explanation, just a general statement that its consensual role play.
Also, I wonder if the extension of the D/s dynamic beyond the bedroom to the public space was intentional or just failure to properly monitor behavior. If part of the enjoyment of the play was that the D/s behavior was in public and viewed by other people, then the daughter was being INCLUDED in their private life and deserves an explanation even moreso.
60
Ms Erica - Certainly possible about how the daughter might handle the truth. You have far more expertise than I. The daughter not thinking the BF is a good person just suggested to me that that was at least as much disliking how he acts in general as how he treats her.
I didn't specify, but definitely props to the daughter for speaking up.
You draw a much more generous line than I would. I was thinking more along the lines of: No giving orders; no disrespectful language, instead of collars and kneeling. Of course, we don't know how old the children are. I don't know why, as this is not anything that will ever be of any personal relevance, but I'd be interested in your views on what is generally appropriate or at least acceptable, if anything, in the company of children of various ages.
I didn't specify, but definitely props to the daughter for speaking up.
You draw a much more generous line than I would. I was thinking more along the lines of: No giving orders; no disrespectful language, instead of collars and kneeling. Of course, we don't know how old the children are. I don't know why, as this is not anything that will ever be of any personal relevance, but I'd be interested in your views on what is generally appropriate or at least acceptable, if anything, in the company of children of various ages.
61
@54: I didn't have an abusive childhood. I'm also into BDSM, because it's exciting for me. When I'm aroused, the sting of a slap to my boobs makes me more aroused. It's not at all about "punishing" me, because I am perfectly happy to have vanilla sex most of the time. But my boyfriend also seems hotter to me if he tells me what to do in the bedroom. I always have the option of saying "no."
I'll admit, I am not at all into the 24/7 D/s lifestyle. When my boyfriend tells me I've been a naughty girl, it's definitely not because I've forgotten to do a chore, it's because I very clearly want him to spank me.
I used to put clothespins on my clit before masturbating because when I took the clothespins off, my clit would be much more sensitive and so it wouldn't take nearly as long to get me off. It was a little painful, but I don't feel pain the same way when I'm turned on. I think most people who are into masochism are similar, that the rush they get from some application of pain doesn't feel the same when they're aroused as it does when they're not.
I'll admit, I am not at all into the 24/7 D/s lifestyle. When my boyfriend tells me I've been a naughty girl, it's definitely not because I've forgotten to do a chore, it's because I very clearly want him to spank me.
I used to put clothespins on my clit before masturbating because when I took the clothespins off, my clit would be much more sensitive and so it wouldn't take nearly as long to get me off. It was a little painful, but I don't feel pain the same way when I'm turned on. I think most people who are into masochism are similar, that the rush they get from some application of pain doesn't feel the same when they're aroused as it does when they're not.
62
With regards to Dan's response to CWIA, I noticed he kept referring to men and women who were struggling with attraction to children. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that this only occurs in men (at least attraction to children 12 & under, and even in the range of 16-18, it's vanishingly rare in women). Any comments?
63
@49
I get D/S as sexual play, a game to indulge in every now and then. I absolutely don't get 24/7 "lifestyle" D/S and I don't think I ever will.
I so don't get D/s.
I get D/S as sexual play, a game to indulge in every now and then. I absolutely don't get 24/7 "lifestyle" D/S and I don't think I ever will.
64
@ wendykh "I was a human worth having orgasms and that there was nothing wrong with me for enjoying sex."
Most of us start out with that as a premise. I don't think it isn't so much that your view isn't popular as that your problem isn't common. I suspect you aren't unique in doing kink because you were broken and not because you were kinky, but I do think you are very unusual. I'm glad you fixed that. Perhaps you could encourage the few people who are also in your position to fix that without being inflammatory and offensive.
It is very easy for a 24/7 D/s situation to turn abusive. That does not mean that BDSM is inherently abusive.
Most of us start out with that as a premise. I don't think it isn't so much that your view isn't popular as that your problem isn't common. I suspect you aren't unique in doing kink because you were broken and not because you were kinky, but I do think you are very unusual. I'm glad you fixed that. Perhaps you could encourage the few people who are also in your position to fix that without being inflammatory and offensive.
It is very easy for a 24/7 D/s situation to turn abusive. That does not mean that BDSM is inherently abusive.
65
@60 the goal is not to let others know what is going on, but to have fun with subtle meanings. So if he asks me to get him a drink, or wear a particular outfit, he says please, but he'll give me a look that means it's an order, making it fun for me to obey. So there are orders and orders. To me, "no collars, no kneeling, etc" meant "nothing that would seem creepy to non-participants." People shouldn't be barking orders in front of random strangers, let alone children.
66
@63 I think people who don't know someone in a 24/7 relationship have odd ideas about what it must look like. They perhaps imagine that the sub is always naked, or gagged and chained to a wall. Mostly, our lives look like anyone else's, unless we're having sex or at a BDSM party. But it enlivens our everyday interactions. For one thing, it allows us to end any disagreements quickly and with a jolt of sexy pleasure rather than a lingering sense of annoyance. (Oh, right, I'm giving in because I've chosen to always give in, rather than because his way of loading the dishwasher is superior to mine :-)
67
Everyone (excepting trolls) has offered good views on pedophilia and what the LW should/should not do. I have nothing substantive to add - just that pedophilia is a curse. The word, and concept of, a "curse" seems to be considered sort of antique or even quaint these days, but that's what pedophilia seems like to me: an old-school, Ancient-Greece-level, capital-C Curse, one that drags you down and the people around you.
But LW - you can't be fatalistic: with therapy, self-discipline and sublimation, you can beat this and NEVER hurt a child. We're all rooting for you.
But LW - you can't be fatalistic: with therapy, self-discipline and sublimation, you can beat this and NEVER hurt a child. We're all rooting for you.
68
I'll add myself to the list of those no thrilled with Dan's answer to the perhaps-misnamed OK.
Dan quite rightly called the woman out for, in participating in soft D/S roleplay in public, showing lack of awareness and respect for other people's sexual boundaries.
Well, the lack of good sexual boundaries is a characteristic of both abusers and abuse victims. The woman is able to rationalize her own violation of her daughter's boundaries by roleplaying in public - a violation her boyfriend also participates in.
If she's unclear on her daughter's boundaries, it's quite likely that she's also unclear on her own. The same goes for the boyfriend who is willing to play the sexual dominator in front of his sub's children.
These two do not come across as a couple with a clear idea of what is and is not appropriate, respectful, or safe, and such people are just as likely to cause harm to themselves and each other as they are to the people around them.
The children of abusers and abuse victims very often have to grow up with far more finely attuned danger-senses than their parents. I think it's very possible that the mother would be wise to listen to her daughter.
Dan quite rightly called the woman out for, in participating in soft D/S roleplay in public, showing lack of awareness and respect for other people's sexual boundaries.
Well, the lack of good sexual boundaries is a characteristic of both abusers and abuse victims. The woman is able to rationalize her own violation of her daughter's boundaries by roleplaying in public - a violation her boyfriend also participates in.
If she's unclear on her daughter's boundaries, it's quite likely that she's also unclear on her own. The same goes for the boyfriend who is willing to play the sexual dominator in front of his sub's children.
These two do not come across as a couple with a clear idea of what is and is not appropriate, respectful, or safe, and such people are just as likely to cause harm to themselves and each other as they are to the people around them.
The children of abusers and abuse victims very often have to grow up with far more finely attuned danger-senses than their parents. I think it's very possible that the mother would be wise to listen to her daughter.
69
To CWA - there are some great 12 step programs out there for compulsive sexual behavior. You'll get the opportunity to talk about your feelings with people who will thank you for sharing, give you a hug, and ask you to keep coming back. Acceptance like that from a group of people goes a long way towards restoring sanity. If you're not into Jesus, there are some fairly secular groups out there that don't require any set of beliefs for membership. Sex Addicts Anonymous comes to mind.
There are a lot of people out there struggling as you are, many unsuccessfully. I agree with Dan - you are an amazingly strong person to have gone this long without acting on your unwanted desires.
There are a lot of people out there struggling as you are, many unsuccessfully. I agree with Dan - you are an amazingly strong person to have gone this long without acting on your unwanted desires.
70
@62, no, there have been cases in which small children have been sexually abused by adult women. You're right that is is rare, but it does happen.
It is possible that sexual abuse by women is under-reported; if so, it's possible that this is at least partially due to people not recognizing that women can be molesters.
It is possible that sexual abuse by women is under-reported; if so, it's possible that this is at least partially due to people not recognizing that women can be molesters.
71
35-nocutename-- Thank you. When I asked the difference in 24, it was only because I noticed the similarity. I didn't have an agenda. I thought it was obvious that the outcomes of having a sexual relationship with a willing adult man and a too-young-to-consent child were obvious. That's why I phrased my question in terms of how the ADVICE was different.
Thinking about it more, I've realized the source of my discomfort. Every time the Religious Right says homosexuality is a choice and recommends either a talking cure or, worse, pray away the gay, the answer is not "this is harmless and none of your business." The answer is "god made me this way," "it's not a choice," and "suck my dick." The answer is "therapy doesn't work," not "therapy is irrelevant."
So it would seem that recommending therapy and figuring out a way to get therapy without becoming a pariah or landing in jail was giving the Right ammunition. It was giving credence to the ideas of the enemy while offering false hope to someone in pain.
Thinking about it more, I've realized the source of my discomfort. Every time the Religious Right says homosexuality is a choice and recommends either a talking cure or, worse, pray away the gay, the answer is not "this is harmless and none of your business." The answer is "god made me this way," "it's not a choice," and "suck my dick." The answer is "therapy doesn't work," not "therapy is irrelevant."
So it would seem that recommending therapy and figuring out a way to get therapy without becoming a pariah or landing in jail was giving the Right ammunition. It was giving credence to the ideas of the enemy while offering false hope to someone in pain.
72
@24:
How is a prohibition against sticking a knife into someone's kidney any different from a prohibition against sticking a penis into someone's vagina?
Both are laws against sticking an object into a body part. We're hypocrites if we say any different!
How is a prohibition against sticking a knife into someone's kidney any different from a prohibition against sticking a penis into someone's vagina?
Both are laws against sticking an object into a body part. We're hypocrites if we say any different!
73
In light of the well-argued point @68, and the fact that the LW says that her daughter suspects abuse based only on "my generally deferring to his wishes," I'm curious whether others think it's inappropriate to let it be seen that I enjoy deferring to my husband's wishes, by smiling when he asks me to reload the dishwasher? Is that kind of thing involving others in our sex life?
And if so, how is that different from PDA in general? Is it just as inappropriate when he hugs and kisses me on the lips? Is our holding hands inappropriate? Him patting my butt as he walks by? Me rubbing his shoulders? What level of "involving others in our sex life" crosses the line?
And if so, how is that different from PDA in general? Is it just as inappropriate when he hugs and kisses me on the lips? Is our holding hands inappropriate? Him patting my butt as he walks by? Me rubbing his shoulders? What level of "involving others in our sex life" crosses the line?
74
@66 Erica -- No, that's not it, I don't think that 24/7 D/S means living in an SM dungeon. I get that it is about "obeying" and acknowledging the other person as your "leader" -- at least, I think that that is what it's about. I even can imagine something like "submitting to a powerful leader who knows best" and not having to think for yourself, not having responsibility, returning to childhood as it were, being somehow liberating.
But I don't get how this can ever be anything more than a fantasy. I reality, your "dom" is not a powerful leader who knows best. You are both adults. So how can you lead your life as if you are a child instead of an adult?
If I completely misunderstood the nature of a 24/7 D/S relationship, which I probably did, please let me know.
But I don't get how this can ever be anything more than a fantasy. I reality, your "dom" is not a powerful leader who knows best. You are both adults. So how can you lead your life as if you are a child instead of an adult?
If I completely misunderstood the nature of a 24/7 D/S relationship, which I probably did, please let me know.
75
Maybe it's just a figure of speech when CWIA says he "wishes to Christ" that things could be different for him, but if he's interested, we've started an online Christian forum to support Same-sex Youth Attracted Persons ('gay' pedophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles) who are dedicated to resisting self-interested temptation and making ethical and legal use of our God-given natures. See www.cjat.org
76
Maybe it's just a figure of speech when CWIA says he "wishes to Christ" that things could be different for him, but if he's interested, we've started an online Christian forum to support Same-sex Youth Attracted Persons ('gay' pedophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles) who are dedicated to resisting self-interested temptation and making ethical and legal use of our God-given natures. See www.cjat.org
77
Maybe it's just a figure of speech when CWIA says he "wishes to Christ" that things could be different for him, but if he's interested, we've started an online Christian forum to support Same-sex Youth Attracted Persons ('gay' pedophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles) who are dedicated to resisting self-interested temptation and making ethical and legal use of our God-given natures. See www.cjat.org
78
Jill, #1. I didn't until you mentioned it, and, well ewwwww
Hey, CWIA: hang in there. Get help. I was molested by a f--king USAF fighter pilot when I was 10, not good. I won't say my life was permanently messed up, only happened once, but how many kids did he screw up I don't know.
Dan, start a collection for this guy, I'll cover the first session.
Hey, CWIA: hang in there. Get help. I was molested by a f--king USAF fighter pilot when I was 10, not good. I won't say my life was permanently messed up, only happened once, but how many kids did he screw up I don't know.
Dan, start a collection for this guy, I'll cover the first session.
79
@24
Um, I'm sorry, are you referring to the advice from the commenters? Because I didn't see that in Dan's response...
Um, I'm sorry, are you referring to the advice from the commenters? Because I didn't see that in Dan's response...
80
"I'm curious whether others think it's inappropriate to let it be seen that I enjoy deferring to my husband's wishes"
Yes, I think power exchange should be kept away from children. Just fake being utterly egalitarian in front of them.
I liked what you said about how you interact.
"To me, "no collars, no kneeling, etc" meant "nothing that would seem creepy to non-participants." People shouldn't be barking orders in front of random strangers, let alone children."
Sounds like you are considerate of your guests and other people around you.
Yes, I think power exchange should be kept away from children. Just fake being utterly egalitarian in front of them.
I liked what you said about how you interact.
"To me, "no collars, no kneeling, etc" meant "nothing that would seem creepy to non-participants." People shouldn't be barking orders in front of random strangers, let alone children."
Sounds like you are considerate of your guests and other people around you.
81
@46 From my understanding of rape fetishists, they aren't like, "I want to rape somebody really bad so I'll play rape to try to satisfy my urge to rape in a way that nobody actually gets raped." That's why they don't graduate to rape. It's because they never wanted actual rape in the first place.
82
@74, to me, it's not like being a child, it's like being a nun in the Church of Existentialism. It doesn't really matter how the dishwasher gets loaded. There's the way I want to do it, and the way he wants me to do it. We could argue, or I can just submit. Submission is a challenge (I'm very strong-willed), but it makes loading the dishwasher a game, instead of a chore.
When it comes to important issues (raising our children, political campaigns, finding ways to save money or avoid wasting energy), we discuss matters as if we were equals. If we end up disagreeing, and doing things his way is an acceptable choice, then I'll do things his way. If it's not an acceptable choice (if he wanted me to campaign for Rick Santorum), then I would defy him.
24/7 doesn't mean total obedience. A nun might have moments of rebellion too. But the goal is obedience. (If he really supported Santorum, he'd have lost his mind, and in that case I'm under orders to leave him and/or get him some help.)
When it comes to important issues (raising our children, political campaigns, finding ways to save money or avoid wasting energy), we discuss matters as if we were equals. If we end up disagreeing, and doing things his way is an acceptable choice, then I'll do things his way. If it's not an acceptable choice (if he wanted me to campaign for Rick Santorum), then I would defy him.
24/7 doesn't mean total obedience. A nun might have moments of rebellion too. But the goal is obedience. (If he really supported Santorum, he'd have lost his mind, and in that case I'm under orders to leave him and/or get him some help.)
83
@nocute
Crinoline has always been cool before, it must be a method thing not a comparison of gay to pedo. Something about how it is inborn and impossible to fix with therapy not how it is harmless. So I second your post.
Crinoline has always been cool before, it must be a method thing not a comparison of gay to pedo. Something about how it is inborn and impossible to fix with therapy not how it is harmless. So I second your post.
84
@ 66 that bit about the dishwasher provides some insight that was missing, thanks EricaP. Also thanks @61, I don't get the pain thing either but I can appreciate that it works for some. You do make it sound exciting.
But back to D/s: I can't stand being told what to do, and I've also made efforts as an adult not to be an assertive prick myself, cultivating instead negociation and empathy skills, because do unto others etc. So the desire for domination (or to dominate) is about as perplexing to me as getting turned on by being henpecked and nagged. Except in D/s the potential for abuse is so much greater, and in some cases to us lay people is basically indistinguishable. I mean, here's a woman whose own daughter is concerned for her welfare. That's not sexy. Yes, consent makes it all okay: but we don't grant consent to children, even fifteen-year-olds who seem to know what they want; we question whether women in Islamic countries who defend their culture and insist they are happy are really so; at what point is a D/s relationship crossing the line, even with consent? And again, how is that sexy?
But back to D/s: I can't stand being told what to do, and I've also made efforts as an adult not to be an assertive prick myself, cultivating instead negociation and empathy skills, because do unto others etc. So the desire for domination (or to dominate) is about as perplexing to me as getting turned on by being henpecked and nagged. Except in D/s the potential for abuse is so much greater, and in some cases to us lay people is basically indistinguishable. I mean, here's a woman whose own daughter is concerned for her welfare. That's not sexy. Yes, consent makes it all okay: but we don't grant consent to children, even fifteen-year-olds who seem to know what they want; we question whether women in Islamic countries who defend their culture and insist they are happy are really so; at what point is a D/s relationship crossing the line, even with consent? And again, how is that sexy?
85
CWIA
You are a wonderful person for doing this. Hang in there. I don't know what will help. Go ahead and look into therapy and chemical castration(you can always stop taking the drugs they don't do permanent damage), support groups, young looking boyfriends and anything else that might help.
The only thing I do know that helps is stay away from kids. Don't have kids, don't have friends with kids, don't work with them, don't date people with kids etc. Seriously, arrange your life around avoiding contact with kids. Sadly you should even stay away from your own relatives if they are a problem.
I am sorry someone even suggested suicide. I was inpatient with someone who had tried to kill himself because he was in your shoes while I was there because I had been raped as a kid. I spent most of my time on the ward trying to convince him that he was a good person and to not hurt himself again.
Don't hurt yourself. You are a good person. Remember you have not hurt anyone.
You are a wonderful person for doing this. Hang in there. I don't know what will help. Go ahead and look into therapy and chemical castration(you can always stop taking the drugs they don't do permanent damage), support groups, young looking boyfriends and anything else that might help.
The only thing I do know that helps is stay away from kids. Don't have kids, don't have friends with kids, don't work with them, don't date people with kids etc. Seriously, arrange your life around avoiding contact with kids. Sadly you should even stay away from your own relatives if they are a problem.
I am sorry someone even suggested suicide. I was inpatient with someone who had tried to kill himself because he was in your shoes while I was there because I had been raped as a kid. I spent most of my time on the ward trying to convince him that he was a good person and to not hurt himself again.
Don't hurt yourself. You are a good person. Remember you have not hurt anyone.
86
I totally agree about the Heartbroken response, it was really wonderful advice and insight, yet again mr savage! Thank you for what you do. :)
87
I want to add my vote of appreciation for the coverage of pedophilia. Dan, I'd like you to ask your pedophilia experts this: in an ideal world -- without politics & funding issues etc, and based on what we currently know -- how would a society deal with pedophilia? What would the experts put in place if they had free rein? Please tell us, I'm fascinated.
89
The interesting thing about pedophilia is that probably there are safe ways of indulging in it -- from pornography to sex with children under controlled situations. (If sex is just a regular activity, and if the obsessive side is taken away from it, it shouldn't in principle be harder than playing sports or games with children, which adults can do. The idea that sex inherently harms children, rather than manipulation or predatorial assholery or lack of attention to children's needs and perspective, is probably going to be the last bit of sex-negativity people will let go of -- if ever they do.)
Given the current cultural scene, however, the chances of this ever being actually rationally discussed in public are the proverbial snowball's chance in hell. Not even here in the Netherlands, or in Scandinavia, would this be a good idea.
@nocutename, @crinoline, on the idea of the treatability of sexual impulses... Lord Domly Pants's Bane above mentinoed something I find important, namely, that not everybody does the same thing for the same reason. He distinguished 'broken people who turn to kink' (like wendykh) from 'really kinky people'. He went on saying that the former might benefit from therapy, in that finding out what the real problem/dilemma was for which kink was only a substitute might make the subject happier than the kink itself and so "free" him/her from the kink.
I suspect the same is true for pedophiles. (And even for gays, for that matter. I suspect there must be some actually straight people who think they are gay for reasons other than 'true' sexual orientation; for these people, some sort of re-orientation therapy might actually work and 'cure' them from the gayness they thought they had.)
In other words, depending on the actual reasons you have for wanting the sex you want -- homosexuality, paraphilia (kinks), pedophilia -- therapy might work. Or it might not, in case you are a 'true' one. But you'll only know if you try.
This indeed means, by the way, that it is not really correct for gay activists (as Crinoline quite correctly points out) to base their defense on 'therapy doesn't work' rather than on 'therapy is irrelevant'. For some people therapy will probably work (if they're really straight and think they're gay for some other reason) and will be relevant; it's just that these are not the 'true' gays. The error of the conservatives is thinking all gays are 'false' gays; the error of gay activists would be thinking all gays are 'true' gays.
(Which of course suggest the topic of where 'true' gayness -- or 'true' kinkiness, 'true' pedophilia -- comes from, if not from childhood traumas. My quick speculative answer: from childhood experiences, meaning by this that not all things that determine who we will be in life need be 'traumatic' or 'conflictual' [existentialist 'bad faith'], they can also be 'organic' and 'shaping'.)
@EricaP/RegisteredEuropean, discussing the the D/s lifestyle... EricaP offers a good description to RegisteredEuropean. I agree that the religious imagery is quite apt. In fact, I will go further and ask: isn't it acceptable that religious people find happiness in the idea of submitting to god (this is the meaning of Islam)? And does this submission imply a loss of freedom and agency--or rather, as most religious people claim, a gain ('the truth will set you free')?
European, I think that wanting to be a child again is really the wrong comparison. 'Surrendering to the light' might make more sense.
To me, personally, the idea of a Domme partner is like the idea of an inspirational angel. She is surrounded by a halo of light, and every submission to her is really a step up on the great chain of being, with a near-transcendent side to it that even goes beyond sex and is difficult to describe clearly. It feels numinous, awe-inspiring. When you do it, when you truly submit, you are Walking With God In The Valley of The Shadow of Death (and fearing no evil, because your Domme is with you; and you know she's a good person, and would never harm you -- because you're not stupid and you vetted her before this whole thing started. :-)
And it's sexy like all hell. Suddenly every little thing has an immediate effect on your sex organs. It's like doing foreplay 24/7, as it were.
More...
The interesting thing about pedophilia is that probably there are safe ways of indulging in it -- from pornography to sex with children under controlled situations. (If sex is just a regular activity, and if the obsessive side is taken away from it, it shouldn't in principle be harder than playing sports or games with children, which adults can do. The idea that sex inherently harms children, rather than manipulation or predatorial assholery or lack of attention to children's needs and perspective, is probably going to be the last bit of sex-negativity people will let go of -- if ever they do.)
Given the current cultural scene, however, the chances of this ever being actually rationally discussed in public are the proverbial snowball's chance in hell. Not even here in the Netherlands, or in Scandinavia, would this be a good idea.
@nocutename, @crinoline, on the idea of the treatability of sexual impulses... Lord Domly Pants's Bane above mentinoed something I find important, namely, that not everybody does the same thing for the same reason. He distinguished 'broken people who turn to kink' (like wendykh) from 'really kinky people'. He went on saying that the former might benefit from therapy, in that finding out what the real problem/dilemma was for which kink was only a substitute might make the subject happier than the kink itself and so "free" him/her from the kink.
I suspect the same is true for pedophiles. (And even for gays, for that matter. I suspect there must be some actually straight people who think they are gay for reasons other than 'true' sexual orientation; for these people, some sort of re-orientation therapy might actually work and 'cure' them from the gayness they thought they had.)
In other words, depending on the actual reasons you have for wanting the sex you want -- homosexuality, paraphilia (kinks), pedophilia -- therapy might work. Or it might not, in case you are a 'true' one. But you'll only know if you try.
This indeed means, by the way, that it is not really correct for gay activists (as Crinoline quite correctly points out) to base their defense on 'therapy doesn't work' rather than on 'therapy is irrelevant'. For some people therapy will probably work (if they're really straight and think they're gay for some other reason) and will be relevant; it's just that these are not the 'true' gays. The error of the conservatives is thinking all gays are 'false' gays; the error of gay activists would be thinking all gays are 'true' gays.
(Which of course suggest the topic of where 'true' gayness -- or 'true' kinkiness, 'true' pedophilia -- comes from, if not from childhood traumas. My quick speculative answer: from childhood experiences, meaning by this that not all things that determine who we will be in life need be 'traumatic' or 'conflictual' [existentialist 'bad faith'], they can also be 'organic' and 'shaping'.)
@EricaP/RegisteredEuropean, discussing the the D/s lifestyle... EricaP offers a good description to RegisteredEuropean. I agree that the religious imagery is quite apt. In fact, I will go further and ask: isn't it acceptable that religious people find happiness in the idea of submitting to god (this is the meaning of Islam)? And does this submission imply a loss of freedom and agency--or rather, as most religious people claim, a gain ('the truth will set you free')?
European, I think that wanting to be a child again is really the wrong comparison. 'Surrendering to the light' might make more sense.
To me, personally, the idea of a Domme partner is like the idea of an inspirational angel. She is surrounded by a halo of light, and every submission to her is really a step up on the great chain of being, with a near-transcendent side to it that even goes beyond sex and is difficult to describe clearly. It feels numinous, awe-inspiring. When you do it, when you truly submit, you are Walking With God In The Valley of The Shadow of Death (and fearing no evil, because your Domme is with you; and you know she's a good person, and would never harm you -- because you're not stupid and you vetted her before this whole thing started. :-)
And it's sexy like all hell. Suddenly every little thing has an immediate effect on your sex organs. It's like doing foreplay 24/7, as it were.
90
@1 Please, PLEASE stop spamming these comment threads and trying to drive traffic to your shitty blog.
91
Okay, EricaP (@73), I'll take a stab at it, but I'm afraid I'll be seen as criticizing you again. So here is a general disclaimer: I believe that you know what you like and what's best for you, and I believe that you know when you're happy and you are happy. I also believe that the choice you've made to be a sub is your own choice.
I kind of meant this to be a prophylactic disclaimer so I wouldn't bring on people's anger again, but I realized as I was writing it, that it starts off my response to your question @73. I'll introduce the conundrum like this:
I'm Jew and I'm also an atheist. (Happy Purim, by the way! In a minute I need to take my hamantaschen out of the oven.)
For many people that statement is contradictory: Judaism is a religion, so how can you be an atheist and still a Jew. But Judaism is both a religion and a culture. Obviously, for a lot of people, it's both simultaneously. For some Jews the two aspects are inextricably intertwined.
A lot of non-Jews have never really thought about it: since their own religion is separate from a particular named culture (though clearly, the presence of their religion in their lives provides a specific culture and a community--it's just not necessarily recognized by the rest of the world as a culture tied irrevocably to their particular religion)it makes no sense that some who says she is Jewish could also say she doesn't believe in God. Or maybe it makes less sense when, despite her profession of atheism, she's celebrating a holiday that is religious in origin and nature. (Or maybe not--one could see Christmas being celebrated by people who aren't really acknowledging or observing any of the truly religious aspects of it.)
For me, the two aspects of Judaism can be separated; I am an atheist Jew, but I'm well aware that there is an inherent problem with characterizing myself that way. In some very deep level, the two aspects--culture/ethnicity and religion--can't really be teased fullly apart.
So it would seem in a D/s relationship that extends outside the bedroom, or the purely sexual realm, into "real life"--whether those extensions take the place of what would be recognizably D/s- ish to the general population or whether there is a private little smile hovering on the lips of the person being ordered to re-load the diswasher.
Because by it's nature, a true D/s relationship MUST extend beyond merely the bedroom, even if the sub isn't kneeling, wearing a collar, and calling his Dom "Master," but is even saying, "And when you pick up the groceries, make sure to get 2% milk--last time you got whole."
So here's the conundrum as I see it. If you're ethical, you don't involve unaware and non-consensual people in your sex life. If you realize that being asked to do something domestic is an order-in-disguise or a private hint at the sexual relationship, and it's being done in the presence of others who don't intend to be part of your sex life, than it's wrong, no matter how benign-seeming or really benign (let's say the intention is not to involve innocents against their will or without their knowledge; it's just a sexy dynamic you've got going and it turns each other on) it is.
But if you say, as I can about being an atheist Jew, "I am capable of separating the bedroom or more explicitly sexual aspect of the D/s dynamic from non-sexual, YET STILL D/S-Y ASPECTS OF OUR RELATIONSHIP," you should be aware that there is something inextricable about that dynamic, an intertwining of the D/s-sexual arena and the D/s-non-sexual arena, just as I have to acknowledge that Judaism is still a RELIGION and that, culturally-Jewish-only as I am, I am, by nature, and at my core, identifying as a member of a religion.
You can't fully separate your D/s-ness from your non-bedroom selves, roles, or relationship.
I'm not suggesting that you stop or try to stop, or that you are unethical for involving others as witnesses to what is also your sexual relationship (obviously amped way, way up); I'm saying that in the example you offered, this is a tricky ethical question, worthy of a lot of consideration.
More...
I kind of meant this to be a prophylactic disclaimer so I wouldn't bring on people's anger again, but I realized as I was writing it, that it starts off my response to your question @73. I'll introduce the conundrum like this:
I'm Jew and I'm also an atheist. (Happy Purim, by the way! In a minute I need to take my hamantaschen out of the oven.)
For many people that statement is contradictory: Judaism is a religion, so how can you be an atheist and still a Jew. But Judaism is both a religion and a culture. Obviously, for a lot of people, it's both simultaneously. For some Jews the two aspects are inextricably intertwined.
A lot of non-Jews have never really thought about it: since their own religion is separate from a particular named culture (though clearly, the presence of their religion in their lives provides a specific culture and a community--it's just not necessarily recognized by the rest of the world as a culture tied irrevocably to their particular religion)it makes no sense that some who says she is Jewish could also say she doesn't believe in God. Or maybe it makes less sense when, despite her profession of atheism, she's celebrating a holiday that is religious in origin and nature. (Or maybe not--one could see Christmas being celebrated by people who aren't really acknowledging or observing any of the truly religious aspects of it.)
For me, the two aspects of Judaism can be separated; I am an atheist Jew, but I'm well aware that there is an inherent problem with characterizing myself that way. In some very deep level, the two aspects--culture/ethnicity and religion--can't really be teased fullly apart.
So it would seem in a D/s relationship that extends outside the bedroom, or the purely sexual realm, into "real life"--whether those extensions take the place of what would be recognizably D/s- ish to the general population or whether there is a private little smile hovering on the lips of the person being ordered to re-load the diswasher.
Because by it's nature, a true D/s relationship MUST extend beyond merely the bedroom, even if the sub isn't kneeling, wearing a collar, and calling his Dom "Master," but is even saying, "And when you pick up the groceries, make sure to get 2% milk--last time you got whole."
So here's the conundrum as I see it. If you're ethical, you don't involve unaware and non-consensual people in your sex life. If you realize that being asked to do something domestic is an order-in-disguise or a private hint at the sexual relationship, and it's being done in the presence of others who don't intend to be part of your sex life, than it's wrong, no matter how benign-seeming or really benign (let's say the intention is not to involve innocents against their will or without their knowledge; it's just a sexy dynamic you've got going and it turns each other on) it is.
But if you say, as I can about being an atheist Jew, "I am capable of separating the bedroom or more explicitly sexual aspect of the D/s dynamic from non-sexual, YET STILL D/S-Y ASPECTS OF OUR RELATIONSHIP," you should be aware that there is something inextricable about that dynamic, an intertwining of the D/s-sexual arena and the D/s-non-sexual arena, just as I have to acknowledge that Judaism is still a RELIGION and that, culturally-Jewish-only as I am, I am, by nature, and at my core, identifying as a member of a religion.
You can't fully separate your D/s-ness from your non-bedroom selves, roles, or relationship.
I'm not suggesting that you stop or try to stop, or that you are unethical for involving others as witnesses to what is also your sexual relationship (obviously amped way, way up); I'm saying that in the example you offered, this is a tricky ethical question, worthy of a lot of consideration.
92
Well! I just finished writing my comment and posting it and now I see there have been a bunch responding to EricaP @ 73. If my thoughts echo what has already been posted I apologize for seeming to beat a dead or answered horse.
93
we recently found out that our now-18-yo son had been involved with an openly gay man in is 30's for 2 years - age 15-17. It was "consentual" in that my son considered this POS his boyfriend.
My son has been out for a couple of years- but he wasn't out yet when this "family friend" (and teacher) manipulated him into this "relationship". At the time, POS was the only person he had come out to- his role model and confidante.
I guess POS saw an opportunity & took it. Fortunately, POS is no longer in the state, and our son seems well-adjusted and happy. He now has a nice "normal" boyfriend and going to college in the fall.
Sadly, as Dan tried to explain to me when I turned to him for advice abt this, until there are more openly gay/accepted kids in school, these teenagers will be lonely and vulnerable to POS's like this one.
Is this POS a pedofile? He is to us, but truly he is just a lying, pathetic, lonely single gay man, who befriended a high school kid & fooled our family into trustiing him.
We will never forgive him. I wish I could, but I feel like he stole my son's hs years.
My son has been out for a couple of years- but he wasn't out yet when this "family friend" (and teacher) manipulated him into this "relationship". At the time, POS was the only person he had come out to- his role model and confidante.
I guess POS saw an opportunity & took it. Fortunately, POS is no longer in the state, and our son seems well-adjusted and happy. He now has a nice "normal" boyfriend and going to college in the fall.
Sadly, as Dan tried to explain to me when I turned to him for advice abt this, until there are more openly gay/accepted kids in school, these teenagers will be lonely and vulnerable to POS's like this one.
Is this POS a pedofile? He is to us, but truly he is just a lying, pathetic, lonely single gay man, who befriended a high school kid & fooled our family into trustiing him.
We will never forgive him. I wish I could, but I feel like he stole my son's hs years.
94
@62 - While it isn't commonly reported, at least, there are definitely cases of adult woman molesting very young children (not just teenagers). One of my best friends was repeatedly sexually molested by his own mother. He was about six when it started.
95
@ #89... you said the following: "The interesting thing about pedophilia is that probably there are safe ways of indulging in it -- from pornography to sex with children under controlled situations. (If sex is just a regular activity, and if the obsessive side is taken away from it, it shouldn't in principle be harder than playing sports or games with children, which adults can do. The idea that sex inherently harms children, rather than manipulation or predatorial assholery or lack of attention to children's needs and perspective, is probably going to be the last bit of sex-negativity people will let go of -- if ever they do.)"
That's rather still a disgusting attitude. Comparing sex with children to playing games if it's not manipulated? Children don't have the emotional maturity to know better. Explaining sex to a kid, telling htem i'ts healthy and feels good and selling it like a vitamin supplement is still manipulation... An adult has the responsibility to protect children from doing things before they're ready. Why not tell a 6 year old that didn't take a nap to do a line of cocaine to wake up? When not abused and in small doses, it's harmless right? Such a defense of logic could only come from a pedophile man. It's just searching for justification for being sick in the head and nothing more.
I have read about people who had sex with a parent and still do, because they were raised with the logic you suggest. It's still brain washing. It's subscribing to a belief because you trusted someone who abused your trust. Why are people catholic? Because they were raised catholic, and did not chose it. Raising a kid that sex with daddy is a just bonus to jock straps after a game of baseball is revolting. Please don't encourage people with diseased minds with your nasty ideas.
More...
That's rather still a disgusting attitude. Comparing sex with children to playing games if it's not manipulated? Children don't have the emotional maturity to know better. Explaining sex to a kid, telling htem i'ts healthy and feels good and selling it like a vitamin supplement is still manipulation... An adult has the responsibility to protect children from doing things before they're ready. Why not tell a 6 year old that didn't take a nap to do a line of cocaine to wake up? When not abused and in small doses, it's harmless right? Such a defense of logic could only come from a pedophile man. It's just searching for justification for being sick in the head and nothing more.
I have read about people who had sex with a parent and still do, because they were raised with the logic you suggest. It's still brain washing. It's subscribing to a belief because you trusted someone who abused your trust. Why are people catholic? Because they were raised catholic, and did not chose it. Raising a kid that sex with daddy is a just bonus to jock straps after a game of baseball is revolting. Please don't encourage people with diseased minds with your nasty ideas.
96
@54 (wendykh) I am a femsub, and I did not have anything remotely resembling an abusive childhood. My parents are still married, I was never beaten or sexually assaulted or neglected. And I'm also a masochist, and that entails everything from spanking, flogging, and hair-pulling to tattoos, piercings, and scarification. Most people who have tattoos or piercings will tell you that they're addictive. Many people compulsively eat hot/spicy food, even if it doesn't do anything to enhance the flavour, because of the sensation of heat. All of these things (like getting spanked, or pushing your body beyond the extreme by running a marathon, or having a needle shoved through your nipples) cause a chemical reaction in the brain: when your brain senses pain, it releases endorphins. The high I got when I got my nipples pierced for the second time, or when I got my first tattoo is very similar to being drunk, or coming down from a really intense orgasm. THAT is what makes pain feel good. So some masochists aren't working through their issues--they just like the rush they get from feeling pain when it coincides with something they enjoy doing.
97
@ #89... you said the following: "The interesting thing about pedophilia is that probably there are safe ways of indulging in it -- from pornography to sex with children under controlled situations. (If sex is just a regular activity, and if the obsessive side is taken away from it, it shouldn't in principle be harder than playing sports or games with children, which adults can do. The idea that sex inherently harms children, rather than manipulation or predatorial assholery or lack of attention to children's needs and perspective, is probably going to be the last bit of sex-negativity people will let go of -- if ever they do.)"
That's rather still a disgusting attitude. Comparing sex with children to playing games if it's not manipulated? Children don't have the emotional maturity to know better. Explaining sex to a kid, telling htem i'ts healthy and feels good and selling it like a vitamin supplement is still manipulation... An adult has the responsibility to protect children from doing things before they're ready. Why not tell a 6 year old that didn't take a nap to do a line of cocaine to wake up? When not abused and in small doses, it's harmless right? Such a defense of logic could only come from a pedophile man. It's just searching for justification for being sick in the head and nothing more.
I have read about people who had sex with a parent and still do, because they were raised with the logic you suggest. It's still brain washing. It's subscribing to a belief because you trusted someone who abused your trust. Why are people catholic? Because they were raised catholic, and did not chose it. Raising a kid that sex with daddy is a just bonus to jock straps after a game of baseball is revolting. Please don't encourage people with diseased minds with your nasty ideas.
More...
That's rather still a disgusting attitude. Comparing sex with children to playing games if it's not manipulated? Children don't have the emotional maturity to know better. Explaining sex to a kid, telling htem i'ts healthy and feels good and selling it like a vitamin supplement is still manipulation... An adult has the responsibility to protect children from doing things before they're ready. Why not tell a 6 year old that didn't take a nap to do a line of cocaine to wake up? When not abused and in small doses, it's harmless right? Such a defense of logic could only come from a pedophile man. It's just searching for justification for being sick in the head and nothing more.
I have read about people who had sex with a parent and still do, because they were raised with the logic you suggest. It's still brain washing. It's subscribing to a belief because you trusted someone who abused your trust. Why are people catholic? Because they were raised catholic, and did not chose it. Raising a kid that sex with daddy is a just bonus to jock straps after a game of baseball is revolting. Please don't encourage people with diseased minds with your nasty ideas.
98
@ Dukefairfax o (#87)... I'm curious about that too.
I commend the guy for reaching out for help... but what we know with hard facts is that pedophiles almost always repeat their crime in some way.
It really is telling someone that's a straight man they can't legally be attracted to women, but that is harmless. We not talking about children.
Rehabilitation and therapy do not bare good results, and could almost be said that they don't work at all. So this is what I'm curious to hear about from an "expert" who isn't going to say, "Abandon all hope, all ye who enter."
So then what would we do? Execute them all? What they're doing is awful, but I don't believe these people can help how they feel. I don't think there's a pill that can make it go away. Put them in jail forever? A pedophile colony under monitoring?
Because me, as a human, if someone molested my niece... and they were walking in front of my car... only an act of god could stop me from pushing the gas pedal to the floor and shouting, "no brake you sick mother..." out my window. If I were on a jury for a murder trial where someone too revenge on a child molester, I couldn't vote guilty. Because that person 98% of the time is going to repeat the offense.
I commend the guy for reaching out for help... but what we know with hard facts is that pedophiles almost always repeat their crime in some way.
It really is telling someone that's a straight man they can't legally be attracted to women, but that is harmless. We not talking about children.
Rehabilitation and therapy do not bare good results, and could almost be said that they don't work at all. So this is what I'm curious to hear about from an "expert" who isn't going to say, "Abandon all hope, all ye who enter."
So then what would we do? Execute them all? What they're doing is awful, but I don't believe these people can help how they feel. I don't think there's a pill that can make it go away. Put them in jail forever? A pedophile colony under monitoring?
Because me, as a human, if someone molested my niece... and they were walking in front of my car... only an act of god could stop me from pushing the gas pedal to the floor and shouting, "no brake you sick mother..." out my window. If I were on a jury for a murder trial where someone too revenge on a child molester, I couldn't vote guilty. Because that person 98% of the time is going to repeat the offense.
99
@91, "don't involve unaware people in your sex life... in the example you offered, this is a tricky ethical question."
I agree that it's tricky, but I'm still stuck on whether it's okay for vanillas to hug and kiss their sweeties, give shoulder rubs in front of their children, wink at each other suggestively.
I think my basic sense is that it is okay to portray a loving relationship to one's children, and that part of a loving relationship is being a bit physical together. Groping genitals or boobs in front of the children isn't okay, but kissing and hugging is. And I guess, really, I think that smiling at each other over a politely worded request is more like kissing than it is like groping. I'm open to other people's thoughts on this (and will try not to get defensive :-)
I agree that it's tricky, but I'm still stuck on whether it's okay for vanillas to hug and kiss their sweeties, give shoulder rubs in front of their children, wink at each other suggestively.
I think my basic sense is that it is okay to portray a loving relationship to one's children, and that part of a loving relationship is being a bit physical together. Groping genitals or boobs in front of the children isn't okay, but kissing and hugging is. And I guess, really, I think that smiling at each other over a politely worded request is more like kissing than it is like groping. I'm open to other people's thoughts on this (and will try not to get defensive :-)
100
@89
"sex with children under controlled situations"
I'm curious to how you think that could possibly be acheived. I do think that having sex with children probably is inherently wrong, even though the whole 'children aren't sexual' premise has always bewildered me. I've been 'sexual' for as far back as I can imagine. I seem to be slightly unique in that respect though since the statement appears at all....
"sex with children under controlled situations"
I'm curious to how you think that could possibly be acheived. I do think that having sex with children probably is inherently wrong, even though the whole 'children aren't sexual' premise has always bewildered me. I've been 'sexual' for as far back as I can imagine. I seem to be slightly unique in that respect though since the statement appears at all....
102
@Erica
If it makes you feel any better. I'm usually squicked out by all PDAs/allusions to sex lives between couples. Vanilla/non equally.
If it makes you feel any better. I'm usually squicked out by all PDAs/allusions to sex lives between couples. Vanilla/non equally.
103
We frequently castrate non-human animals so that they don't produce unwanted, unmaintainable amounts of puppies and kittens. This isn't considered 'cruel' or unusual. It isn't death and isn't the most terrible thing in the world. Spending the money on an orchiectomy is probably more affordable than a lifetime of therapy in USA.
104
CWIA: Please be sure to read #4 and #85. There are people like you out there and they have experiences that can help you.
It makes me very sad that our system is set up so poorly to help people like CWIA. Very sad.
It makes me very sad that our system is set up so poorly to help people like CWIA. Very sad.
105
I just wanted to point out that when they talk about castrating sex offenders, it's not like anyone gets their balls cut off. It's chemical castration, it's temporary, and if the treatment isn't state-mandated, I imagine it's expensive. It's not a viable option for this guy. But it's also not the horror everyone is imagining it to be. Hell, technically *I* have been "castrated" -- I'm on Depo-provera and it's absolutely killed my sex drive. In fact, Depo is one of the exact drugs they use to "castrate" men. I'm going off of it, because yay sex! But come on, I wasn't actually castrated. It's silly that we use that word for chemical sex drive control.
106
I was always under the impression that pedophilia was a result of sexual abuse AS a child. I suppose there are other circumstances, but I'm confused. If something is inherent and nearly uncontrollable, a desire he's had for as many years as he's been able to conceive of sexual activity- how does this happen? How is this natural- meaning if it wasn't brought on by abuse? I wonder why this isn't something that is more frequently discussed. How could it be that brains, for lack of a better term, are "wired incorrectly"? Maybe this is too big a question to ask. It's just so mysterious to me and woefully under developed and misunderstood. Either way, I love that this taboo topic got brought up.
107
my@102, do you know the word "squick" was invented around 1994 in the alt.tasteless newsgroup as a response to the question "What is the sound of a good skull fucking?"
It soon came to mean a feeling of intense disgust from hearing about something super gross, like a skull fucking... or, you know, a couple holding hands... :-)
It soon came to mean a feeling of intense disgust from hearing about something super gross, like a skull fucking... or, you know, a couple holding hands... :-)
108
@99, for me, Erica, I would wonder if your kids ever see the dynamic go the other way, meaning you ask your husband to do something, say please and smile, and he does it. You and he are role modeling adult relationships for your kids, and if they only ever see you acquiesce, albeit with a smile, and never see you ask or him comply, then they are getting a really specific one-way message: men ask (demand), women comply. It's not so much about the sex life here as it is about how they will interact with their future partners and what their expectations will be of those partners.
109
@nocutename, but I think an interesting aspect that people didn't mention (at least up to your last comment) is that all kinds of sexual relationship 'spill over' onto non-sexual life.
In fact, that's part of Dan's claim that heterosexual couples can live and be accepted as such, doing things like holding hands or kissing in public -- while homosexuals who do the same thing are "jamming their lifestyle down other people's throats".
Likewise, when a vanilla couple shares a smile, which may well be (and probably is ultimately) sexual in origin (since even simply expressing the pleasure of being together as a couple implies what it is that typically makes a couple a couple in our culture, i.e., sex), this is accepted. Similarly for holding hands, kissing, words like 'baby' or 'hon' or even 'sweetheart'.
But if a kinky couple shared a little something of their happiness together -- the smile while loading the dishwasher -- some people might see this as "jamming their lifestyle down other people's throat" or "non-consensually forcing others to partake in your sex life".
A lot of 'appropriateness' has to do with expectations of vanilla (= non-kinky) and heterosexual (= non-gay) sex between couples. Within certain boundaries, het vanilla behavior that is ultimately sexual in nature or origin is still considered acceptable -- but not from other orientations.
In fact, that's part of Dan's claim that heterosexual couples can live and be accepted as such, doing things like holding hands or kissing in public -- while homosexuals who do the same thing are "jamming their lifestyle down other people's throats".
Likewise, when a vanilla couple shares a smile, which may well be (and probably is ultimately) sexual in origin (since even simply expressing the pleasure of being together as a couple implies what it is that typically makes a couple a couple in our culture, i.e., sex), this is accepted. Similarly for holding hands, kissing, words like 'baby' or 'hon' or even 'sweetheart'.
But if a kinky couple shared a little something of their happiness together -- the smile while loading the dishwasher -- some people might see this as "jamming their lifestyle down other people's throat" or "non-consensually forcing others to partake in your sex life".
A lot of 'appropriateness' has to do with expectations of vanilla (= non-kinky) and heterosexual (= non-gay) sex between couples. Within certain boundaries, het vanilla behavior that is ultimately sexual in nature or origin is still considered acceptable -- but not from other orientations.
110
@Erica - I did not! I first heard the word, hm - I'm going to go with 10 years after that? At least?
In 1994 I was... well probably colouring, mostly.
Hang holding/hugging doesn't bother me - but I don't consider that to be sexual? More friendly/platonic. Is there an opposite of voyueristic? I'm that. :p
In 1994 I was... well probably colouring, mostly.
Hang holding/hugging doesn't bother me - but I don't consider that to be sexual? More friendly/platonic. Is there an opposite of voyueristic? I'm that. :p
111
@99 The thing about hugging, kissing, and winking is that they're only as sexual as the context the user applies them in and they can be applied to a wider range of relationships (friends, relatives & etc.). The key difference I believe is seperating the sexual aspect from the affectionate one. If something can be interpeted as purely affectionate and performed by someone in any intimate relationship (parent to child, partner to partner & etc.) than it's appropriate. Of course what you do when the kids aren't in the same room, are drooling infront of an electronic screen & etc is completely up to you and Mr.P. And I have to say kids learn how to interact with others based on your interaction with each other and it's hard to change their behavior once they start a habit. For example, an uncle of mine slaps his wife's ass. Because of that since he was 3 yrs old to present I have to correct my seven year old cousin for slapping me and other female relations on the ass. Really awkward.
112
Erica and Ank @82 and @89, thank you for the explanations. I'm afraid that the comparisons to religion do not make the whole thing much clearer to me. Your dom(me) is not actually a god and I'm sure that you know it.
I guess I just don't have the "sub" or "dom" personality required to understand this.
I guess I just don't have the "sub" or "dom" personality required to understand this.
113
@102 exactly! I can't stand seeing major PDA, no matter who it's between. I even get annoyed at sex scenes in movies sometimes, no matter how vanilla they are. I believe it was Roald Dahl who said, "The act of copulation is like picking your nose. It's alright to do it yourself, but it's a singularly disgusting spectacle for anyone looking on."
114
Dan, great response to CWIA. Thanks for bringing in the big guns (Dr. Cantor). My heart goes out to CWIA as he attempts to find healthy relationships and avoid those that would be a bad idea. Stay strong, CWIA!
115
@113
I also dislike sex scenes in movies. I don't know if I love that comparison but Dahl was a funny man, I'll give him that.
My perspective on it is this: I like ice cream. I love ice cream actually. I could do nothing but eat ice cream all day and be perfectly happy. But I have zero interest in watching someone else eat icecream. Especially if I'm hungry. If you're a person who's always hungry? You'll never be a fan of watching other people eat.
I also dislike sex scenes in movies. I don't know if I love that comparison but Dahl was a funny man, I'll give him that.
My perspective on it is this: I like ice cream. I love ice cream actually. I could do nothing but eat ice cream all day and be perfectly happy. But I have zero interest in watching someone else eat icecream. Especially if I'm hungry. If you're a person who's always hungry? You'll never be a fan of watching other people eat.
116
@95(pushcraig), it's not per se disgusting, but the fact you thought so (as well as the fact you accused me of being/talking like a pedophile, despite the fact that I am not one) is part of what I was trying to say when I said it's nearly impossible to talk rationally about this. Just in case, I'll offer you a few comments on what you wrote.
Children indeed do trust you pretty unconditionally (I think that's what is really behind what you call "lack of emotional maturity"), so you indeed have to be careful about what you tell them. We do tell kids that many different things are "healthy" and "feel good" and "sell it like a vitamin supplement" -- that's how we taught our daughter do exercise daily. We invented a name for every exercise or yoga position we wanted her to practice -- "that's 'the little fish', and that's 'the bird', and that's 'the little dog', and that's 'the mountain', and that's 'the bridge' -- and we came up with a story with all those characters she tells while doing the exercises. This fills her with glee, and makes out of exercising -- something she usually finds boring -- very interesting and pleasant.
Parents do things like this to children all the time. Is this manipulation? If so, then a lot of parenting (the part called 'education') consists of 'manipulation.'
Why would sex in principle be different from exercising?
Of course. But when are they ready? At 15? 14? 10? 8? 6?... Besides, they start playing with things they aren't "ready for" almost from the very beginning. My daughter already 'worked' (by imitating us and pretending to type on a computer keyboard) when she was 3, 4 years old and had absolutely no idea what 'work' was. Was this "wrong"? Should I have said "horrors! no! stop! don't do this! you aren't ready for 'working' yet, you're too young!"
Cocaine is obviously harmful to the health. That's a no-brainer. "When not abused and in small doses, it's harmless right?" It's not what I've heard or read. But then again, I've never used cocaine.
Sex, on the other hand, clearly isn't inherently harmful.
Your cocaine example suggests that you're thinking of sex with children as starting at the most complicated/dangerous/risky level. That's not how you teach children to play games, or sports. If you want to teach them to play baseball, you don't start with your wickedest curveballs; if football, you don't start with bone-breaking tackles. You do things that are at the mental/physical level of the child in question, and always bearing the child's interest and mental/physical development in mind. (And, of course, the idea that children should also have fun.)
It's interesting that you jumped from "sex with children" to incest as a matter of course -- it's another aspect of our culture, which sees sex with children as inherently incestuous. Still...
Some of them even 'got married' with their parents, and lead happy lives, if you trust what they themselves say -- judging by a newspaper article I read not so long ago about one such case. Are you sure they aren't? As sure as the conservatives are about gays being vile?
How is that in essence any different from any activity said children might continue to share with their parents well after adulthood? My wife, for instance, always went mountain-climbing with her dad. She still does, when she pays them a visit. Is she doing that only because her dad "raised/brainwashed/manipulated her to believe that mountain-climbing with daddy (a potentially dangerous activity! people can die!) is OK!" Revolting, right?
That is actually a good point, and it does concern me. But assholes and manipulative people can always use such arguments to justify their manipulative behavior.
All in all, either we want to find out where the truth lies (and in this case we have to speak openly), or then we recede in fear of those who do not want to converse constructively, but only seek rationalizations for harming others. I choose and support the former. But as I said, not without concern.
Life is dangerous.
More...
Children don't have the emotional maturity to know better. Explaining sex to a kid, telling htem it's healthy and feels
good and selling it like a vitamin supplement
is still manipulation...
Children indeed do trust you pretty unconditionally (I think that's what is really behind what you call "lack of emotional maturity"), so you indeed have to be careful about what you tell them. We do tell kids that many different things are "healthy" and "feel good" and "sell it like a vitamin supplement" -- that's how we taught our daughter do exercise daily. We invented a name for every exercise or yoga position we wanted her to practice -- "that's 'the little fish', and that's 'the bird', and that's 'the little dog', and that's 'the mountain', and that's 'the bridge' -- and we came up with a story with all those characters she tells while doing the exercises. This fills her with glee, and makes out of exercising -- something she usually finds boring -- very interesting and pleasant.
Parents do things like this to children all the time. Is this manipulation? If so, then a lot of parenting (the part called 'education') consists of 'manipulation.'
Why would sex in principle be different from exercising?
An adult has the
responsibility to protect children from doing things before they're ready. Why not tell a 6 year old that didn't take a nap to do a line of cocaine to wake up?
Of course. But when are they ready? At 15? 14? 10? 8? 6?... Besides, they start playing with things they aren't "ready for" almost from the very beginning. My daughter already 'worked' (by imitating us and pretending to type on a computer keyboard) when she was 3, 4 years old and had absolutely no idea what 'work' was. Was this "wrong"? Should I have said "horrors! no! stop! don't do this! you aren't ready for 'working' yet, you're too young!"
Cocaine is obviously harmful to the health. That's a no-brainer. "When not abused and in small doses, it's harmless right?" It's not what I've heard or read. But then again, I've never used cocaine.
Sex, on the other hand, clearly isn't inherently harmful.
Your cocaine example suggests that you're thinking of sex with children as starting at the most complicated/dangerous/risky level. That's not how you teach children to play games, or sports. If you want to teach them to play baseball, you don't start with your wickedest curveballs; if football, you don't start with bone-breaking tackles. You do things that are at the mental/physical level of the child in question, and always bearing the child's interest and mental/physical development in mind. (And, of course, the idea that children should also have fun.)
I have read about people who had sex with a parent and still do, because they were raised with the logic you suggest. It's still brain washing. It's subscribing to a belief because you trusted someone who abused your trust.
It's interesting that you jumped from "sex with children" to incest as a matter of course -- it's another aspect of our culture, which sees sex with children as inherently incestuous. Still...
Some of them even 'got married' with their parents, and lead happy lives, if you trust what they themselves say -- judging by a newspaper article I read not so long ago about one such case. Are you sure they aren't? As sure as the conservatives are about gays being vile?
How is that in essence any different from any activity said children might continue to share with their parents well after adulthood? My wife, for instance, always went mountain-climbing with her dad. She still does, when she pays them a visit. Is she doing that only because her dad "raised/brainwashed/manipulated her to believe that mountain-climbing with daddy (a potentially dangerous activity! people can die!) is OK!" Revolting, right?
Please don't encourage people with diseased minds with your nasty ideas.
That is actually a good point, and it does concern me. But assholes and manipulative people can always use such arguments to justify their manipulative behavior.
All in all, either we want to find out where the truth lies (and in this case we have to speak openly), or then we recede in fear of those who do not want to converse constructively, but only seek rationalizations for harming others. I choose and support the former. But as I said, not without concern.
Life is dangerous.
118
Hay Dan,
There is an option that CWIA should consider. Just find a good therapist and let them report him. Think about what will happen next.
The police won't get involved because there is no allegation of any crime.
If there is a child somewhere involved the Child Protection agency where they are will check to make sure there's been not been abuse and may follow-up regularly to make sure.
The worst case is that people with kids close to CWIA might discover he has pedophilic impulses, which might not be a bad thing.
It's super scary and puts your sexual preferences in some peoples faces you'd rather not but it's not like they don't have a need to know.
There is an option that CWIA should consider. Just find a good therapist and let them report him. Think about what will happen next.
The police won't get involved because there is no allegation of any crime.
If there is a child somewhere involved the Child Protection agency where they are will check to make sure there's been not been abuse and may follow-up regularly to make sure.
The worst case is that people with kids close to CWIA might discover he has pedophilic impulses, which might not be a bad thing.
It's super scary and puts your sexual preferences in some peoples faces you'd rather not but it's not like they don't have a need to know.
119
@73 et al:
I think that couples modeling affection in front of children is a good thing. And I think that unless the affection is of the "oh, gross; ick" variety (too much, too overtly sexual), kids actually are reassured to see that their parents have affection for each other. So from that angle, I would say that it's nice for your kids see you respond to their dad in an affectionate manner.
It is possible that kids would see the smile in response to a "request" to reload the dishwasher and interpret correctly to refer to a private joke, even if they don't realize that the joke is sexual in its origins. And while I think that letting the kids pick up on the fact that mom and dad have private jokes is in the same category as a little light PDA (appropriate to model), I'd be a bit concerned that in this particular behavior, what they APPEAR to be witnessing is a hyper-controlling, micro-managing husband (if the dishwasher was already loaded, they're seeing what looks like controlling for the sake of being controlling, which indeed it is), and an always-acquiescing wife, who doesn't question useless, work-making domestic demands.
Now it could be that they also witness plenty of times when the wife/mom doesn't respond that way or the husband/dad doesn't make those kinds of demands or does a domestic task himself or even does one at the wife/mom's request. And they could also be witnessing requests made with a "please," and "thank you," and also witnessing the husband respond to little gestures of submission the wife makes with gratitude.
But, as #108 said, I have issues with modeling submissive domestic behavior that breaks down along gender roles. I would be very careful to make those moments rare or to model a variety of other ways of interacting domestically to offset those moments. And I would find other, maybe even more subtle ways of establishing/acknowledging that D/s relationship privately, especially as the kids get older.
More...
I think that couples modeling affection in front of children is a good thing. And I think that unless the affection is of the "oh, gross; ick" variety (too much, too overtly sexual), kids actually are reassured to see that their parents have affection for each other. So from that angle, I would say that it's nice for your kids see you respond to their dad in an affectionate manner.
It is possible that kids would see the smile in response to a "request" to reload the dishwasher and interpret correctly to refer to a private joke, even if they don't realize that the joke is sexual in its origins. And while I think that letting the kids pick up on the fact that mom and dad have private jokes is in the same category as a little light PDA (appropriate to model), I'd be a bit concerned that in this particular behavior, what they APPEAR to be witnessing is a hyper-controlling, micro-managing husband (if the dishwasher was already loaded, they're seeing what looks like controlling for the sake of being controlling, which indeed it is), and an always-acquiescing wife, who doesn't question useless, work-making domestic demands.
Now it could be that they also witness plenty of times when the wife/mom doesn't respond that way or the husband/dad doesn't make those kinds of demands or does a domestic task himself or even does one at the wife/mom's request. And they could also be witnessing requests made with a "please," and "thank you," and also witnessing the husband respond to little gestures of submission the wife makes with gratitude.
But, as #108 said, I have issues with modeling submissive domestic behavior that breaks down along gender roles. I would be very careful to make those moments rare or to model a variety of other ways of interacting domestically to offset those moments. And I would find other, maybe even more subtle ways of establishing/acknowledging that D/s relationship privately, especially as the kids get older.
120
@100(mydriasis), it's a theoretical topic to me, since I have never tried it, nor have I ever seen anyone trying it. But I think it wouldn't in principle be different from teaching children how to swim (something I've done a few times).
How do you teach children not to be afraid of the water (in case they are), and actually to enjoy and have fun in it -- while keeping in mind that they're not adults and might still do stupid things and harm themselves if left unattended?
(Because they do like the water -- even the children who are afraid to swim will look with envy and those who do. Likewise, as you pointed out, with sex: children are clearly sexual beings, though not really fully developed ones in the sense adults are given the absence of hormones.)
A first step is to get the child to enjoy the water. Shallow water, up to the knees, where you can sit, splatter water around, play with floating ducks and other toys, etc. If you do it right (and it's not really difficult), they'll be having great fun. And this way you'll see what they like or don't like about being in the water. You keep that in mind.
Then you have a pretty good idea of where you want to go. Can we try to float a little? Look, that's how I do it -- fill my lungs with air, and I lie down in the water, and see -- I don't sink! Can you do that?... Then you hold them, lying across your arms, so they feel you're right there to help if something frightens them, then they inhale, and keep the air in their lungs, you're still holding them, but you slowly move your arms down... Children are usually afraid at this point, but you keep reassuring them until they can float well... and voilà: suddenly they love floating!
I have the impression something similar could be devised for sex. Again, starting with whatever the child already likes to do -- usually they enjoy touching themselves (though at this age it is difficult to speak of 'true' masturbation, since, as I understand, they get no orgasms).
The big difference is, of course, that a child can sompletely learn to swim -- s/he doesn't need an adult body for that. With sex, lots of things are only possible after the hormones come.
More...
How do you teach children not to be afraid of the water (in case they are), and actually to enjoy and have fun in it -- while keeping in mind that they're not adults and might still do stupid things and harm themselves if left unattended?
(Because they do like the water -- even the children who are afraid to swim will look with envy and those who do. Likewise, as you pointed out, with sex: children are clearly sexual beings, though not really fully developed ones in the sense adults are given the absence of hormones.)
A first step is to get the child to enjoy the water. Shallow water, up to the knees, where you can sit, splatter water around, play with floating ducks and other toys, etc. If you do it right (and it's not really difficult), they'll be having great fun. And this way you'll see what they like or don't like about being in the water. You keep that in mind.
Then you have a pretty good idea of where you want to go. Can we try to float a little? Look, that's how I do it -- fill my lungs with air, and I lie down in the water, and see -- I don't sink! Can you do that?... Then you hold them, lying across your arms, so they feel you're right there to help if something frightens them, then they inhale, and keep the air in their lungs, you're still holding them, but you slowly move your arms down... Children are usually afraid at this point, but you keep reassuring them until they can float well... and voilà: suddenly they love floating!
I have the impression something similar could be devised for sex. Again, starting with whatever the child already likes to do -- usually they enjoy touching themselves (though at this age it is difficult to speak of 'true' masturbation, since, as I understand, they get no orgasms).
The big difference is, of course, that a child can sompletely learn to swim -- s/he doesn't need an adult body for that. With sex, lots of things are only possible after the hormones come.
121
@112, if it helps, I don't feel like ankylosaur @89. My husband isn't an angel, and he isn't the center of my religion. The arbitrariness of human existence is more the center. I love my husband, and he's smart & nice & he was willing to be my dom. Those are pretty arbitrary reasons for obeying someone, but it's that very arbitrariness that gives it meaning to me.
Some people feel their dom is actually making better decisions than they would. That's not me. (I'm way too conceited :-) I feel that submitting to an ordinary (smart, nice, loving) human lends a certain flair to my life, that means I'm not "just a housewife." I'm a work in progress of existential art.
Some people feel their dom is actually making better decisions than they would. That's not me. (I'm way too conceited :-) I feel that submitting to an ordinary (smart, nice, loving) human lends a certain flair to my life, that means I'm not "just a housewife." I'm a work in progress of existential art.
122
@89 But sex with kids is *inherently* wrong because they will never be able to give consent. They are too young to do things like sign contracts, do drugs, get plastic surgery and have sex.
I'm glad you understood the point I was trying to make about kink. I am not sure if it applies to other things of not, I guess it couldn't hurt to try.
BTW. I am a woman. The bane of Lord Domly Pants not Lord Domly Pants himself.(not a big deal, I just don't want to be called he forever.)
I'm glad you understood the point I was trying to make about kink. I am not sure if it applies to other things of not, I guess it couldn't hurt to try.
BTW. I am a woman. The bane of Lord Domly Pants not Lord Domly Pants himself.(not a big deal, I just don't want to be called he forever.)
123
@112, in addition to EricaP (who does feel differently from me -- "existential art" instead of "haloed angels"; as you see, like everybody else, we're not all the same), I'll just say the following.
Of course we subs (or wannabee subs in my case) know that the Dom(me)s aren't gods or know the world any better than we do. But pointing this out is like pointing to a vanilla person that the person they're in love with, the person who seems so 'special' and 'lovable', is just a person like everybody else.
At some level, people who are in love "know" that the object of their love is just a person, no better and no worse than a million others, even with some irritating defects. And still they are in love, i.e., they see/sense "something special" about this person they're in love with, something that makes the word "love" meaningful. Not simply a sexual attraction (though that's a big part of it), but a feeling that makes this person more important than others -- even though there is no rational reason why exactly this person should be more important than others.
If you can love someone (see him/her as "special" for some mysterious reason) and at the same time see him/her as a person like everybody else (without this knowledge making their love meaningless) -- then why is it strange that a sub could see his/her Dom(me) as "angels" and submit to them, while also knowing that they are simply people, without this making their submission meaningless? As EricaP points out, the arbitrariness of it (which I read as meaning: the fact that it is our choice) is what gives it meaning, in D/s relationships and in vanilla love relationships alike.
I hope this helps! :-)
Of course we subs (or wannabee subs in my case) know that the Dom(me)s aren't gods or know the world any better than we do. But pointing this out is like pointing to a vanilla person that the person they're in love with, the person who seems so 'special' and 'lovable', is just a person like everybody else.
At some level, people who are in love "know" that the object of their love is just a person, no better and no worse than a million others, even with some irritating defects. And still they are in love, i.e., they see/sense "something special" about this person they're in love with, something that makes the word "love" meaningful. Not simply a sexual attraction (though that's a big part of it), but a feeling that makes this person more important than others -- even though there is no rational reason why exactly this person should be more important than others.
If you can love someone (see him/her as "special" for some mysterious reason) and at the same time see him/her as a person like everybody else (without this knowledge making their love meaningless) -- then why is it strange that a sub could see his/her Dom(me) as "angels" and submit to them, while also knowing that they are simply people, without this making their submission meaningless? As EricaP points out, the arbitrariness of it (which I read as meaning: the fact that it is our choice) is what gives it meaning, in D/s relationships and in vanilla love relationships alike.
I hope this helps! :-)
124
@108, 109, 111, 119, thank you for considering the question seriously. You all make good points, and I'm going to think about whether I can come up with a good way of phrasing this, for use with BDSM folks who are just figuring themselves out.
I hope you guys can see that I take feminism and gender roles very seriously, and I don't think our children are learning that women should be submissive and men should be dominant. We hang out with lots of working moms; know a couple of gay dads; feminism and socialism are serious topics at our house; and everything is always up for debate at the dinner table.
But (in case you can't tell), I have tendencies to be domineering, which I get from my mom. In fact, submission appeals to me in part as a tool for fighting my bossiness. Mr. P was raised by his own domineering mom, and our dynamic could just as easily have gone the other way, with him submitting to my dominance. But I think we're happier this way, and I know that I'm happier not passing on the bad model from my own childhood to my children. It's possible that I'm passing on a different bad model; but at least I'm also passing on the idea that you get to choose the framework for your life, rather than just repeating the patterns of your parents.
Also, for what it's worth, our D/s is a bit aspirational, and doesn't come easily to us. (I do ask Mr. P. to do things around the house, and I don't always do what I'm told.) But when it works, we share a smile.
Finally- the dishwasher doesn't get completely unloaded and reloaded - who has that kind of time?! It's more if I'm putting a dish on the bottom rack that he thinks should go on the top rack, he'll ask me to move it and I'll obey without a whole discussion of why my way is superior (although it is :-).
More...
I hope you guys can see that I take feminism and gender roles very seriously, and I don't think our children are learning that women should be submissive and men should be dominant. We hang out with lots of working moms; know a couple of gay dads; feminism and socialism are serious topics at our house; and everything is always up for debate at the dinner table.
But (in case you can't tell), I have tendencies to be domineering, which I get from my mom. In fact, submission appeals to me in part as a tool for fighting my bossiness. Mr. P was raised by his own domineering mom, and our dynamic could just as easily have gone the other way, with him submitting to my dominance. But I think we're happier this way, and I know that I'm happier not passing on the bad model from my own childhood to my children. It's possible that I'm passing on a different bad model; but at least I'm also passing on the idea that you get to choose the framework for your life, rather than just repeating the patterns of your parents.
Also, for what it's worth, our D/s is a bit aspirational, and doesn't come easily to us. (I do ask Mr. P. to do things around the house, and I don't always do what I'm told.) But when it works, we share a smile.
Finally- the dishwasher doesn't get completely unloaded and reloaded - who has that kind of time?! It's more if I'm putting a dish on the bottom rack that he thinks should go on the top rack, he'll ask me to move it and I'll obey without a whole discussion of why my way is superior (although it is :-).
125
@122, "bane" as in "affliction or curse"? Cool, it's another new word, I didn't know it. (English is not my native language; I've just googled it.) By coincidence, "bane" sounds very much like the Irish word for woman, bean [b(y)a:n]). Sorry for mis-sexing you.
Children cannot give consent to things with lots of possibly bad/harmful consequences (contracts, voting, drinking, plastic surgery, etc.), but they do give consent all the time to all kinds of things -- and I hope they're taken seriously. If I ask my daughter (who is 9) if she would agree to play chess with me, and she says yes, I am sure she is giving meaningful consent. (She plays chess rather well, by the way. I can see she soon will play better than me.)
The point is that, in our society, sex is construed a Big Important Thing With Lots Of Consequences, so of course children aren't "prepared" for it. But is it?
Adults of course always know a lot more about everything -- not simply sex -- than children, so whenever engaging in an activity with them the utmost care and attention to their needs is necessary. This makes anything -- not only sex -- between children and adults inherently asymmetrical. But asymmetrical doesn't mean 'not fun', 'not meaningful', 'not consensual.' These things do become trickier, but they don't disappear.
Children cannot give consent to things with lots of possibly bad/harmful consequences (contracts, voting, drinking, plastic surgery, etc.), but they do give consent all the time to all kinds of things -- and I hope they're taken seriously. If I ask my daughter (who is 9) if she would agree to play chess with me, and she says yes, I am sure she is giving meaningful consent. (She plays chess rather well, by the way. I can see she soon will play better than me.)
The point is that, in our society, sex is construed a Big Important Thing With Lots Of Consequences, so of course children aren't "prepared" for it. But is it?
Adults of course always know a lot more about everything -- not simply sex -- than children, so whenever engaging in an activity with them the utmost care and attention to their needs is necessary. This makes anything -- not only sex -- between children and adults inherently asymmetrical. But asymmetrical doesn't mean 'not fun', 'not meaningful', 'not consensual.' These things do become trickier, but they don't disappear.
126
@93
I don't want to distract from the seriousness of your son's abuse (it definitely was abuse), but the POS in question is, based on your account, absolutely not a pedophile. Technically, the POS is an ephebophile, or a person attracted to post-pubescent adolescents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophili…
This distinction isn't particularly helpful to you, I know, but I do think it's important to distinguish between the two. Your son felt he was involved in a consensual "adult" relationship with this person--again, this does not mitigate the seriousness of the abuse; in some ways it makes it worse. All abusers manipulate their victims, but your son's POS did it by convincing him that he was an equal in the relationship--a pretty goddamn damaging position for the poor kid to be in. I hope your family can recover from this.
I don't want to distract from the seriousness of your son's abuse (it definitely was abuse), but the POS in question is, based on your account, absolutely not a pedophile. Technically, the POS is an ephebophile, or a person attracted to post-pubescent adolescents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophili…
This distinction isn't particularly helpful to you, I know, but I do think it's important to distinguish between the two. Your son felt he was involved in a consensual "adult" relationship with this person--again, this does not mitigate the seriousness of the abuse; in some ways it makes it worse. All abusers manipulate their victims, but your son's POS did it by convincing him that he was an equal in the relationship--a pretty goddamn damaging position for the poor kid to be in. I hope your family can recover from this.
127
(Sorry, one more note: yes, we could just be egalitarian instead -- but that leads to wasting time arguing about how to load the dishwasher... I'd rather give in right away, and move on to fucking :-)
128
@111, the point you raise reminds me of the expectations some moderate conservatives had that children who grow up with gay parents may end up seeing gay relationships as 'the default norm' and expect this and acquire all kinds of habits (kissing people of the same sex, hugging or touching them more than is 'appropriate', etc) -- in other words, that, given their being raised by gay parents, their behavior will be different from 'normal' kids with heterosexual partners.
Usually this doesn't happen. True, children do imitate many of their parents' idiosyncrasies. But as they interact with others outside their home, they learn to stop with that (as you are teaching that child not to slap women's behinds). In fact, at some point children often even become very critical of their parents and the differences between them and the 'common norm/expectations' they get exposed to at school, with friends, etc.
I would expect the same to happen with children who see some D/s dynamics between their parents (of the kind EricaP described: the smile while loading the dishwasher). As they grow, one hopes their parents will explain things to them more and more (just as one hopes gay parents will also explain to their children that most people are not gay, and that the societal default assumption is heterosexuality).
Usually this doesn't happen. True, children do imitate many of their parents' idiosyncrasies. But as they interact with others outside their home, they learn to stop with that (as you are teaching that child not to slap women's behinds). In fact, at some point children often even become very critical of their parents and the differences between them and the 'common norm/expectations' they get exposed to at school, with friends, etc.
I would expect the same to happen with children who see some D/s dynamics between their parents (of the kind EricaP described: the smile while loading the dishwasher). As they grow, one hopes their parents will explain things to them more and more (just as one hopes gay parents will also explain to their children that most people are not gay, and that the societal default assumption is heterosexuality).
129
@119(nocutename), which means, in principle, that you would feel better if the PDA went against "typical" gender roles -- i.e., if it was the sub hubby smiling after deferring to his wife's opinion on how to load the dishwasher?
So you wouldn't expect all other sources of influence (TV, school, friends, etc.) to counterbalance this? Plus, of course, the conversations parents have with their children about boys and girls and equality (a context in which an explanation for the sub spouse's smile might be embedded)?
So you wouldn't expect all other sources of influence (TV, school, friends, etc.) to counterbalance this? Plus, of course, the conversations parents have with their children about boys and girls and equality (a context in which an explanation for the sub spouse's smile might be embedded)?
130
Hi Erica,
I have read this column religiously for years, and I find your comments fascinating. Since you offered to take questions, @50, I hope you don't mind if I ask one.
OK's letter discusses the exact thing I've always wanted to ask you. I know you talk about raising children with your husband, and I often wondered how you think they interpret your D/s relationship? In other words, might they grow up and feel as OK's daughter does that their father was abusive towards their mother, due to the fact that they don't know the nature of your D/s relationship? I hope this doesn't' come off as an accusation, I am just honestly curious. (Full disclosure: My father was actually abusive towards my mother, so I am particularly sensitive to this issue.)
Also, I once read a comment where you wrote something like "My husband and I have never had a conversation as equals." Maybe I am getting that wrong, but it really stuck me, so I believe I am remembering it correctly. I was just confused when you wrote @82 "When it comes to important issues..we discuss matters as if we were equals." That would seem logical, but all of this time I have been picturing your type of D/s relationship to mean deferring to someone else absolutely, at all times.
I have read this column religiously for years, and I find your comments fascinating. Since you offered to take questions, @50, I hope you don't mind if I ask one.
OK's letter discusses the exact thing I've always wanted to ask you. I know you talk about raising children with your husband, and I often wondered how you think they interpret your D/s relationship? In other words, might they grow up and feel as OK's daughter does that their father was abusive towards their mother, due to the fact that they don't know the nature of your D/s relationship? I hope this doesn't' come off as an accusation, I am just honestly curious. (Full disclosure: My father was actually abusive towards my mother, so I am particularly sensitive to this issue.)
Also, I once read a comment where you wrote something like "My husband and I have never had a conversation as equals." Maybe I am getting that wrong, but it really stuck me, so I believe I am remembering it correctly. I was just confused when you wrote @82 "When it comes to important issues..we discuss matters as if we were equals." That would seem logical, but all of this time I have been picturing your type of D/s relationship to mean deferring to someone else absolutely, at all times.
131
Everyone, Some of @89's comment may just be due to the laws in his country of origin being so different. Age of consent in the Netherlands as I recall is 14. Therefore, Anklosaur's definition of 'child' is far, far different than most SLOG commenters', I'd say. For the record, I personally believe early exposure to sex is intrinsically harmful to children, and that even sixteen is too low for age of consent
132
Ankylosaur
Please put trigger warnings on the top of posts like that.
I am probably not the only one quivering in a ball of nauseated flashbacks now.
Please put trigger warnings on the top of posts like that.
I am probably not the only one quivering in a ball of nauseated flashbacks now.
133
Why do you need to waste time arguing about how to load the dishwasher? Why can't it be that the person who's loading it is the one who decides how to do it? Why does the person *not* loading it get any say?
To answer your earlier questions, Erica -- Yes, watching a man slap his wife's butt would be disgusting. Seeing a couple "share a smile" and having any reason to suspect it was because they were getting off on what they were doing in front of me? Would disgust me just as much. More, maybe.
To answer your earlier questions, Erica -- Yes, watching a man slap his wife's butt would be disgusting. Seeing a couple "share a smile" and having any reason to suspect it was because they were getting off on what they were doing in front of me? Would disgust me just as much. More, maybe.
134
@130, we talk as if we are equals, but we're not equals. If I were in a room with Obama, he might be nice enough to treat me as an equal, but I respect the authority he has as my (elected) President, and I respect the authority my husband has as my (chosen) Dom. I try to defer to him, but I don't always succeed. But as I said at length @124, I think my kids know I'm strong-willed and don't see me as abused.
@133, I've seen egalitarian marriages waste a lot of time discussing stupid issues. I guess you've had different experiences. Maybe I shouldn't tell you that vanilla couples who have a lot of sex are probably often smiling about that, even in public, even when it looks like they're just chatting about some random topic. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
@133, I've seen egalitarian marriages waste a lot of time discussing stupid issues. I guess you've had different experiences. Maybe I shouldn't tell you that vanilla couples who have a lot of sex are probably often smiling about that, even in public, even when it looks like they're just chatting about some random topic. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
135
Dan, you advised CWTA not to have children. I wonder why. I am attracted to adult men and I have 2 young sons. But I don't ever fear that when they become adult men that I will become attracted to them. I am also attracted to adult women. My daughter is becoming a beautiful young woman, but I am in no way attracted to her. Is it different for pedophiles in general (general enough to assume form a letter that makes no mention of it that he would be attracted to his own offspring)? Is incest not a block to any of them? I know it isn't a block for all of them, but is it a block to NONE of them?
136
Dan - I am in for supporting a fund for the very courageous CWIA. I am a survivor, along with nearly 10 other children who lived in my neighborhood in a coastal Oregon town during two years in the early 70s, who lives with daily fallout from having crossed paths with a pedophile. Who knows how many more children there were over the years? I have been in therapy and/or treatment since I was 15. I am highly accomplished and appear to be confident and well-adjusted. On the inside, I am self-loathing, "contaminated", and I fight constant urges to harm myself. I work very hard at my recovery and it's never enough. Your writer will save lives every time he can fight his urges and make another choice. He deserves support and encouragement. Please establish some means for us to help him fund the therapy he seeks.
137
EricaP, what strikes me about your marriage, as you describe it, is the same as what strikes me about all successful relationships: you're really, really, really committed to making it work. The successful D/s marriage might have superficial differences from its vanilla counterpart, but that's all it is--superficial. It's very generous of you to share so much of your experience with us, especially since people can get a little, ah, intrusive at times (last week springs to mind), but your input is very much appreciated. Enough fawning, though--whenever I tried to incorporate mild D/s elements into the humdrum household boredom of my recently deceased relationship, it never worked, because I kept trying to do things "wrong" so he would punish me for it, but his natural laziness as far as the state of the house (and as far as the state of my sexual satisfaction) would kick in, and I'd wind up unspanked and with a sinkful of dirty dishes. The whole thing really loses a lot of its spark when you have to keep reminding the other person what the arrangement is--even though he was theoretically totally on board and enjoyed beatings, etc, he never could commit to doing it more than a few times a year. We never did find a decent balance, although I was the only one who suffered because of this. I left him a few months ago for a lot of reasons, but the more I think about him the more annoyed I am that he made so little effort to satisfy my needs, especially since he enjoyed my kinks whenever we did engage in them. You're lucky to have someone who can make the same kind of effort you do.
138
@137 truth be told, he doesn't put in as much as I'd like. At the beginning, yes, but it faded away. Just like you, I got tired of begging for more dominance, and we spent about five years only actively scening about once a year (though I fixed him coffee every morning, and earned a nice smile for doing so...) The flip side of opening our marriage was that I get a lot more BDSM attention now. More from other people, and also more from him, since his competitive side reared its head. If people want to make a BDSM relationship work longterm, it's hard to figure things out by yourself. Books, and online support groups help immensely.
139
That last line was cryptic: I mean, these same issues come up in most BDSM LTRs, and it's good to see how other people have worked through them.
140
Dan could probably fill his column everyday with letters from submissive men and women who can't get their partner to be dominant enough.
141
@EricaP, I wish I could have tried opening up my last relationship, but my boyfriend was waaaayyyy too possessive for that. I prefer monogamy, actually, but I think our relationship might have stood a better chance if I'd not been so much at my wits end sexually. I'm fine with mostly vanilla sex, but when the vanilla sex is so boring I can barely stay awake, the D/s stuff is virtually nonexistent and I'm the only one making any effort on either front...! His refusal to even think about even discussing opening up the relationship on very, very, VERY strict terms was one of the things, I think, that made me just totally turn off sexually. Something about how possessive yet neglectful he was really hurt...like he was a five-year-old and I was some neglected toy that he wouldn't play with but wouldn't share.
143
Well, it makes freedom all the sweeter. Being back on the market and open to attention from guys again has made such a huge difference in my general state of mind--not to mention how exciting it is to fuck new people again! My ex was the only guy I'd ever lived with, and I really underestimated how fantastic it would feel to hook up with new partners after all that monogamous cohabitation. It's kind of making me question how much I really enjoyed the stability of monogamy...although I imagine I'll jump back on the monogamy bandwagon if I ever fall in love again.
144
@132 Ankylosaur is a very intelligent socially awkward person, that is my guess. Or a well spoken troll. Sometimes people get a feeling of satisfaction when they use rationality to "explain" horrifying topics. It's like "I'm speaking clearly and precisely, therefore your bad feelings are your problem" Which of course is bullshit. There are enough adults in this world who had pedophiles in their early life, who made them feel like it was all loving attention, who now recall the events as confusing and maturation stunting, to prove all of Ankylosaur's theories wrong. I feel sad for this person who is so cold and calculating or enraged at this person who is creating a "character" in a comments text box for the enjoyment of stirring up a reaction. Either way, you are going to be ok 132. Most people are good and trustworthy. I was not molested but Ankylosaur's comments made me shudder and most people do not agree with this point of view. I'm sad that Ankylosaur may have convinced some poor pedophile mentally ill person out there, that it can be done "ethically"
145
@124, if you raise a son who grows up seeing that mommy's will and opinion is less important and overruled by daddy's will in 99% of situations and she never gets to make even the most trivial of calls, he's going to develop certain expectations for a relationship that won't be counteracted by any amount of lipservice to the idea that women's opinions matter too. You can't possibly believe that a couple of dinner guests who happen to be feminists are going to have half the influence as submommy will.
146
@128 Actually the cousin in question has a brother and there were some rather funny, but awkward moments were they did hug, kiss or engage in some kind of inappropriate affection with other boys they were friends with which they thought was ok because they did it to each other, their cousins & etc. Affection exchanged between men is very common even in the homophobic, hyper conservative environment that is my father's family. Still I just don't see sexually charged exchanges as something people do infront of kids, not because it's bad just out of place (like sleeping at a reception). Plus those akward moments could easily turn into something with the potiential to hurt others; for example it was funny to us in kindergarden to kiss on the mouth like adults and it ended a year later (cuties!), but if it had been touching or something of that sort the parent of the other child probably wouldn't be too interested in hearing any excuses, not to mention the weirdness on the receiving party's end.
As for kids seeing non het couples, I actually think that's healthy. Seeing another way of life is always an opportunity for them to learn, regardless of what kind of household they're from. Plus like you pointed out, you never know what kind of home they'll want to make for themselves later on, so showing them variety is critical for self exploration.
As for kids seeing non het couples, I actually think that's healthy. Seeing another way of life is always an opportunity for them to learn, regardless of what kind of household they're from. Plus like you pointed out, you never know what kind of home they'll want to make for themselves later on, so showing them variety is critical for self exploration.
147
@128 Sorry, I just realized something when I re-read your post; I addressed you talking about non het couples when you were alluding to D/S. The key difference, which I think disqualifies them being compared, unlike non het relationships they can and apparently most even want to (see OK's letter) hide their participation in D/S from even their adult children without harming themselves or their partners (closeted homosexuality almost always ends with someone in a bad spot). But prehaps that's a gross generalization on my part, if it is I hope someone will correct me. Anyways, how is a child suppose to discern and scrutinize the reason behind the difference in their parents and other people's parents if they're never suppose to find out? Will they just think their parents are odd and/or dysfunctional? 'Cause I KNOW mine are, and it really ate at my confidence when I started my own romantic relations.
148
TRIGGER WARNING
@144: Social context matters - if ankylosaur is right that some forms of sexual contact between adults and children could be non-harmful in principle, then certainly part of what would be required for that would be for society as a whole to take a very different attitude, not just about that issue, but about the weight we give to sexuality in general.
I'm not sure if that's possible, and I'm not sure if it would be an entirely good thing even if it were. But the fact that a pedophile attempting to be nurturing (or merely portraying himself as nurturing) is largely doomed to failure in a society that condemns sexual activity on the part of children and labels it inherently exploitative, says little about the prospects for nurturing sexual relationships between children and adults in a society that viewed child participation in sexual activity like child participation in sports - somewhat risky, and with a potential for abuse, but also potentially rewarding and enjoyable.
I will reiterate: Whatever might be true of alternative societal structures, adult-child sex cannot be done ethically in the society we actually have, and pedophiles should not try. Also, while I'm making disclaimers, I'll note that I'm not sexually attracted to children, nor do I know of anyone I know who is.
As for why ankylosaur is making the argument he is, I imagine it's the same reason I'm defending him (although not necessarily his position), namely that he believes he's right, and he thinks it's an interesting topic to explore.
As far as trigger warnings go, given the horrific shit that sometimes is discussed in the column itself, I think the general assumption here is that this is not a "safe space" for people who are triggered by just about anything related to sex or relationships. That doesn't mean that trolling just to set people off should be tolerated, but it does mean there should be some space for serious discussion of ideas even if they have the potential to trigger those with PTSD.
More...
@144: Social context matters - if ankylosaur is right that some forms of sexual contact between adults and children could be non-harmful in principle, then certainly part of what would be required for that would be for society as a whole to take a very different attitude, not just about that issue, but about the weight we give to sexuality in general.
I'm not sure if that's possible, and I'm not sure if it would be an entirely good thing even if it were. But the fact that a pedophile attempting to be nurturing (or merely portraying himself as nurturing) is largely doomed to failure in a society that condemns sexual activity on the part of children and labels it inherently exploitative, says little about the prospects for nurturing sexual relationships between children and adults in a society that viewed child participation in sexual activity like child participation in sports - somewhat risky, and with a potential for abuse, but also potentially rewarding and enjoyable.
I will reiterate: Whatever might be true of alternative societal structures, adult-child sex cannot be done ethically in the society we actually have, and pedophiles should not try. Also, while I'm making disclaimers, I'll note that I'm not sexually attracted to children, nor do I know of anyone I know who is.
As for why ankylosaur is making the argument he is, I imagine it's the same reason I'm defending him (although not necessarily his position), namely that he believes he's right, and he thinks it's an interesting topic to explore.
As far as trigger warnings go, given the horrific shit that sometimes is discussed in the column itself, I think the general assumption here is that this is not a "safe space" for people who are triggered by just about anything related to sex or relationships. That doesn't mean that trolling just to set people off should be tolerated, but it does mean there should be some space for serious discussion of ideas even if they have the potential to trigger those with PTSD.
149
@ Ankylosaur
Where are you from? I am mixing you up with someone and thinking you are from Denmark and from Brazil.
Where are you from? I am mixing you up with someone and thinking you are from Denmark and from Brazil.
150
@Ankylosaur "Not even here in the Netherlands, or in Scandinavia, would this be a good idea."
Oh, are you Dutch or did you move there as an adult?
Oh, are you Dutch or did you move there as an adult?
151
@145 The kids see me holding my own in our wide-ranging dinner table conversations; he doesn't tell me what to think, and we both enjoy our lively debates. Even if they're paying attention when we discuss finances, politics, etc., they wouldn't hear me being "overruled by daddy's will." That part is subtle, whereas the vigorous debate is vocal. I find it hard to believe that y'all see me as a docile submommy, but trust me, that's not what the kids see.
152
ankylosaur @123, the comparison to being in love with someone makes sense. But a expressing a feeling like that the form of actually, 24/7, wanting to submit to, let alone dominate, the other person, is alien to me.
By the way, are you familiar with medieval French poetry? It suddenly struck me that the way you describe your concept of submission in @89 is a lot like "courtly love" as first formulated in southern France in the eleventh century. My guess is that you will meet kindred spirits from 900 years ago in the writings of the trouvères.
By the way, are you familiar with medieval French poetry? It suddenly struck me that the way you describe your concept of submission in @89 is a lot like "courtly love" as first formulated in southern France in the eleventh century. My guess is that you will meet kindred spirits from 900 years ago in the writings of the trouvères.
153
@EricaP - I know you have experience here a lot of people enjoy reading, but sometimes Slog seems like the EricaP show. (I mean this mostly kindly & not as bitchy as it sounds.) Have you ever thought of doing your own column somewhere? You're not a professional domme or sub, but you seem to have a lotta good insights into that sort of relationship & being poly. Just wondering.
154
@151 Awesome! Probably shouldn't worry about the other so much then. The idea is not to present an unbalanced relationship to the kids. Seems like you are doing fine.
155
@152, you mean the trouvères and troubadours? Oh yes, I am! :-) I've studied a year of Ancient French and Provençal, including modern (Félibrige) Occitan (especially Mistral). Since these guys invented romantic love as we know it today, the similarity is certainly not random.
Let's put it this way: if someone said s/he wanted to feel in love 24/7 -- that s/he never wanted to stop loving his/her beloved, but wanted to feel all the time the elation and the openness one feels when one is in love (instead of letting actual reality sour the mix), that would still seem, I think, overly optimistic and starry-eyed (and in practice impossible); but somehow it would 'make more sense' and be easier to understand than the desire to live a 24/7 relationship, right?
I think people imagine 24/7 relationships on the basis of D/s fiction (Literotica is full of them). In real life, lovers of all kinds (including D/s lovers) are people with real-life problems and difficulties and shortcomings that don't go away just because we'd like the glow of love to keep on forever.
We comprise. Romantic vanilla and BDSM people alike.
In fact (since I don't currently live in a D/s realtionship), here's a question to those aspiring to a 24/7 one (EricaP?): what do you do when your Dom(me) has a real-life problem that shakes him/her emotionally in a way really compatible with his/her dominat role (an accident, a death in the family, losing one's job, you name it) and now needs nurturing? Can you 'step into' the role of the nurturing parent/spouse, take an active role and offer consolation, while your Dom(me) cries his/her woes away? Does that 'break' the sense of a 24/7 relationship to you, to suddenly be needed as a source of consolation, human warmth, a beacon of light, etc.? As if you were 'superior'? (I think I know the answer, but since I've never been in this situation I'm curious about those who have.)
More...
Let's put it this way: if someone said s/he wanted to feel in love 24/7 -- that s/he never wanted to stop loving his/her beloved, but wanted to feel all the time the elation and the openness one feels when one is in love (instead of letting actual reality sour the mix), that would still seem, I think, overly optimistic and starry-eyed (and in practice impossible); but somehow it would 'make more sense' and be easier to understand than the desire to live a 24/7 relationship, right?
I think people imagine 24/7 relationships on the basis of D/s fiction (Literotica is full of them). In real life, lovers of all kinds (including D/s lovers) are people with real-life problems and difficulties and shortcomings that don't go away just because we'd like the glow of love to keep on forever.
We comprise. Romantic vanilla and BDSM people alike.
In fact (since I don't currently live in a D/s realtionship), here's a question to those aspiring to a 24/7 one (EricaP?): what do you do when your Dom(me) has a real-life problem that shakes him/her emotionally in a way really compatible with his/her dominat role (an accident, a death in the family, losing one's job, you name it) and now needs nurturing? Can you 'step into' the role of the nurturing parent/spouse, take an active role and offer consolation, while your Dom(me) cries his/her woes away? Does that 'break' the sense of a 24/7 relationship to you, to suddenly be needed as a source of consolation, human warmth, a beacon of light, etc.? As if you were 'superior'? (I think I know the answer, but since I've never been in this situation I'm curious about those who have.)
156
@132, I am truly sorry if this had such an effect on you (another problem with discussing these things openly). I'll refrain from further comments on the topic.
157
@135, indeed pedophilia and incest are often conflated as if they were logically the same thing, and yet (logically speaking) they aren't.
158
@156, I meant to add: without TRIGGER WARNINGS...
TRIGGER WARNING...
@144, I am neither (I'm a college professor in a well-known university overseas), and my point is not that your "horrified" feelings are your problem, but that they are not rooted in the actual problems of the thing itself -- which do exist but are not the ones people talk about --, but more on imagination about 'what it means' + social expectations, etc. You may disagree with me, I'm OK with that. But that's no reason to offend me. (That only shows how hard this topic is to discuss rationally at present.) There are also enough people in the world who as kids had sex with adults without getting traumatized (one is a colleague of mine); but, of course, such people don't really come out and say it (just as gays didn't use to, and non-monogamous couples today still don't).
@148, indeed, it is impossible in this society, which is the reason why my advice to CWIA above is not to defend his desires but to try to curb and control them to avoid harming children and himself. For all intents and purposes, pedophilia in our society is not going to work.
The philosophical question is whether this is pedophilia's fault, or our society's fault. Our society has changed about other things in the past; it might change with respect to that as well.
Whether this would be better or not, is a good question to debate. I'm afraid of what people here might think or do if I offered thoughts on the topic, so I think I won't. I'll only say that the sports analogy would apply here as well.
TRIGGER WARNING...
@144, I am neither (I'm a college professor in a well-known university overseas), and my point is not that your "horrified" feelings are your problem, but that they are not rooted in the actual problems of the thing itself -- which do exist but are not the ones people talk about --, but more on imagination about 'what it means' + social expectations, etc. You may disagree with me, I'm OK with that. But that's no reason to offend me. (That only shows how hard this topic is to discuss rationally at present.) There are also enough people in the world who as kids had sex with adults without getting traumatized (one is a colleague of mine); but, of course, such people don't really come out and say it (just as gays didn't use to, and non-monogamous couples today still don't).
@148, indeed, it is impossible in this society, which is the reason why my advice to CWIA above is not to defend his desires but to try to curb and control them to avoid harming children and himself. For all intents and purposes, pedophilia in our society is not going to work.
The philosophical question is whether this is pedophilia's fault, or our society's fault. Our society has changed about other things in the past; it might change with respect to that as well.
Whether this would be better or not, is a good question to debate. I'm afraid of what people here might think or do if I offered thoughts on the topic, so I think I won't. I'll only say that the sports analogy would apply here as well.
159
@150, I'm actually Brazilian, but I've moved to the Netherlands about eleven years ago (after five years in the US doing my Ph.D), where I met my wife (who is a Dutch citizen, though by birth she is Russian Ukrainian). I'm now a binational Dutch-Brazilian citizen.
160
@140, that's actually my current situation, and always was with former girlfriends (with one blessed exception). With my wife we've managed to incorporate certain elements that she feels comfortable with (who doesn't like back rubs and foot massages?), and she will walk the extra mile for me ever now and then, blessed be her heart. By and large this has been enough thus far; I don't feel really 'neglected.' I wonder if I might in the future, though.
161
@151 "Mommy is allowed to argue as much as she wants as long as she always puts away the dishes EXACTLY like he asks" is not going to fool anyone. Kids are not too stupid to pick up on you unfailingly submitting to his will just because you're allowed to voice an opinion, I guarantee.
162
@161, but the fact that kids are not stupid also leads to them understanding that things in other homes are not as in ours. Think again of kids with gay parents: are they going to grow up gay because of that?
Furthermore, is it really true that kids (or adults for that matter) would think that the way things go in the dishwasher is REALLY the important thing, as opposed to lively discussions about all kinds of topics? I don't think I've ever met a kid (or an adult) who thought that.
Besides, parents talk to their children as they grow up, and explain things, in an age-appropriate way. Growth is not all random; there's also parenting.
Furthermore, is it really true that kids (or adults for that matter) would think that the way things go in the dishwasher is REALLY the important thing, as opposed to lively discussions about all kinds of topics? I don't think I've ever met a kid (or an adult) who thought that.
Besides, parents talk to their children as they grow up, and explain things, in an age-appropriate way. Growth is not all random; there's also parenting.
163
"Healthy" sex with children? Good lord...
It's not entirely a question of the sex itself. Children are sexual and will often engage in sex play between one another. There is a very, very big difference between this and sex between a child and an adult. To sum it up, the difference is POWER.
There's a reason statutory rape doesn't just mean adults+minors: even consenting adults can get in big trouble for this if they have a relationship of power over the other person. Adults having sex with children can be compared to therapists seducing their patients.
Yes, some of us get off on dominance and submission, but between consenting adults, power over one another is GIVEN, which means it can be taken back. ULtimately, the power in the relationship is equal.
Having sex with someone who has REAL power over you is, yes, very inherently damaging and unhealthy. Without equal power, there can never be real consent. A dependence relationship (such as children have with MOST adults in their life), in particular, makes real consent impossible; the instinct in children to preserve the relationship AT ALL COSTS will trump their desire to avoid sexual contact. This is a basic survival mechanism.
Without equal, informed, free consent, sex is rape. We define rape as a violent act because sex is deeply intimate and forcing that kind of intimacy where it isn't wanted is a predatorial act. It is not mutual enjoyment, it serves only the predator. Having sex with someone who only cares about their own fulfillment is a highly unpleasant experience in its own right, but when that person doesn't even care enough to respect your RIGHT TO REFUSE? It sends a message of, "you are a thing for me to use, worth less than I am," and it embeds that emotional message into a deep, vulnerable place.
More...
It's not entirely a question of the sex itself. Children are sexual and will often engage in sex play between one another. There is a very, very big difference between this and sex between a child and an adult. To sum it up, the difference is POWER.
There's a reason statutory rape doesn't just mean adults+minors: even consenting adults can get in big trouble for this if they have a relationship of power over the other person. Adults having sex with children can be compared to therapists seducing their patients.
Yes, some of us get off on dominance and submission, but between consenting adults, power over one another is GIVEN, which means it can be taken back. ULtimately, the power in the relationship is equal.
Having sex with someone who has REAL power over you is, yes, very inherently damaging and unhealthy. Without equal power, there can never be real consent. A dependence relationship (such as children have with MOST adults in their life), in particular, makes real consent impossible; the instinct in children to preserve the relationship AT ALL COSTS will trump their desire to avoid sexual contact. This is a basic survival mechanism.
Without equal, informed, free consent, sex is rape. We define rape as a violent act because sex is deeply intimate and forcing that kind of intimacy where it isn't wanted is a predatorial act. It is not mutual enjoyment, it serves only the predator. Having sex with someone who only cares about their own fulfillment is a highly unpleasant experience in its own right, but when that person doesn't even care enough to respect your RIGHT TO REFUSE? It sends a message of, "you are a thing for me to use, worth less than I am," and it embeds that emotional message into a deep, vulnerable place.
164
@162 Apples and oranges. Social roles are the result of social conditioning and sexual orientation is not.
If the kids are young enough that they aren't taking part in these conversations, then "fetch me my slippers" and "yes, sir" are going to have a much larger impact than "I think romney has it in the bag" and "really? because the latest caucuses suggest santorum might actually have a chance," which likely sounds like "wah wah wah wah wah?" "wah wah wah wah wah" to them, Peanuts-style.
If the kids are young enough that they aren't taking part in these conversations, then "fetch me my slippers" and "yes, sir" are going to have a much larger impact than "I think romney has it in the bag" and "really? because the latest caucuses suggest santorum might actually have a chance," which likely sounds like "wah wah wah wah wah?" "wah wah wah wah wah" to them, Peanuts-style.
165
Mr Ank - I don't know that it was the best idea using gay parents for your comparison in post 128. I've tried three times to compose a post about it and can't.
166
@135 - I believe Dan advised CWIA to not have children because of potential legal complications, not because he feared CWIA would abuse his own children. If CWIA has children in his care and then discusses his problem with a therapist, the therapist would be required by law to report him to the authorities even though he has committed no offense.
167
Ms Erica - Passing over the question of whether or not it's a little sad that knowing working mothers and gay fathers shores up anyone's liberal credentials, I do think you have more inherent challenges than your specious counterpart, the Stereotypical Christian Submissive Wife. You, based on history, are doing what you have learned to be best for you and trying to model Strength and Informed Choice. SCSW is living by faith and modeling what she's pushing as The One Right Choice. (I'll avoid a tempting sideline about the concept of Rumspringa.)
It does make me wonder about the differences between S-driven and D-driven relationships. Going by post 138, which seems in line with what you've said often enough before, your relationship does seem to be S-driven. Taking BDSM as three pairs of dualities combined - B/D, D/S and S/M, you seem almost like an interesting combination of a second-pair natural D and a third-pair natural M - not quite, but close to it. Although I am annoyed with myself because I shall now be contemplating dominant masochists and submissive sadists all day, I do wonder how the P marriage might be different if the parental relationship were instead D-driven, with Mr Erica wanting a more submissive wife rather than the other way around as it's said to be.
Now that I've fulfilled my Sincerity Quota for the month, I'll conclude by proclaiming that, regarding your wondering who has that much time, if you've even formed an opinion about the "superiour" way to load a dishwasher, you've already put yourself into Column B. As for role models, I'm primarily inclined to stick the Bad Role Model label on your gay friends, and I shall predict the following catastrophe:
Young Miss Erica (or Mr Erica fils will lose hir girlfriend to a bisexual friend whom everyone takes for gay but whose obsession with her breasts turns out to be not so par-for-the-course after all.
(Talk about tying new packages with old ribbon!)
More...
It does make me wonder about the differences between S-driven and D-driven relationships. Going by post 138, which seems in line with what you've said often enough before, your relationship does seem to be S-driven. Taking BDSM as three pairs of dualities combined - B/D, D/S and S/M, you seem almost like an interesting combination of a second-pair natural D and a third-pair natural M - not quite, but close to it. Although I am annoyed with myself because I shall now be contemplating dominant masochists and submissive sadists all day, I do wonder how the P marriage might be different if the parental relationship were instead D-driven, with Mr Erica wanting a more submissive wife rather than the other way around as it's said to be.
Now that I've fulfilled my Sincerity Quota for the month, I'll conclude by proclaiming that, regarding your wondering who has that much time, if you've even formed an opinion about the "superiour" way to load a dishwasher, you've already put yourself into Column B. As for role models, I'm primarily inclined to stick the Bad Role Model label on your gay friends, and I shall predict the following catastrophe:
Young Miss Erica (or Mr Erica fils will lose hir girlfriend to a bisexual friend whom everyone takes for gay but whose obsession with her breasts turns out to be not so par-for-the-course after all.
(Talk about tying new packages with old ribbon!)
169
Ankylosaur - on your triggering message.
No "healthy sex" is possible between a child and an adult, every survivor will tell you that.
I know no theory on that, but I know from experience that just this small thing : as a child, to understand that an adult is sexually attracted to you, even if the adult never acts on it - it's enough to scar a child for life.
Children need physical contact to be reassured that being alive, and actively engaging in the world is OK. They know these physical contacts are reassuring for them, and they assume that cuddles are a gift of reassurance to them, a one-way act of gentleness. If they come to understand that some adults derive deep pleasure from cuddles, though the child had no intent to give anything, and even less a thing much more intense that what it has ever experienced, the child feels taken advantaged of, duped, robbed, violated. And children like that won't ever seek cuddles again, even if they really need physical reassurance - because the possibility of cuddles leading to being trapped and used is more than they can handle. Physical contact with the outside world goes from being reassuring, to being a terrible threat, of being used against one's will, maskerading as reassurance.
It provokes an instant, intense fear that has no equivalent in the adult world - the fear you'd feel if you heard on the news that atomic bombs are headed approximatively to your place, and if you yell in fear, they'll spot you. And that fear can be so powerful and devastating, that it may even not be conscious, it may appear only in your dreams. Can you imagine not being able to sleep at night in peace, ever, because of your dreams, while not yet an adult ?
And if the caregivers do not react to this fear strongly enough to reassure the child, or if the caregivers are the source of this fear, then you get lasting trauma. The child is still technically alive, but its mind is dead. Its will to live is dead.
It's well known that parts of a sexually abused child's mind shut off. Even without violence or actual sex, children who have had the misfortune of feeling sexually desired by adults won't grow up "feeling normal". I didn't.
More...
No "healthy sex" is possible between a child and an adult, every survivor will tell you that.
I know no theory on that, but I know from experience that just this small thing : as a child, to understand that an adult is sexually attracted to you, even if the adult never acts on it - it's enough to scar a child for life.
Children need physical contact to be reassured that being alive, and actively engaging in the world is OK. They know these physical contacts are reassuring for them, and they assume that cuddles are a gift of reassurance to them, a one-way act of gentleness. If they come to understand that some adults derive deep pleasure from cuddles, though the child had no intent to give anything, and even less a thing much more intense that what it has ever experienced, the child feels taken advantaged of, duped, robbed, violated. And children like that won't ever seek cuddles again, even if they really need physical reassurance - because the possibility of cuddles leading to being trapped and used is more than they can handle. Physical contact with the outside world goes from being reassuring, to being a terrible threat, of being used against one's will, maskerading as reassurance.
It provokes an instant, intense fear that has no equivalent in the adult world - the fear you'd feel if you heard on the news that atomic bombs are headed approximatively to your place, and if you yell in fear, they'll spot you. And that fear can be so powerful and devastating, that it may even not be conscious, it may appear only in your dreams. Can you imagine not being able to sleep at night in peace, ever, because of your dreams, while not yet an adult ?
And if the caregivers do not react to this fear strongly enough to reassure the child, or if the caregivers are the source of this fear, then you get lasting trauma. The child is still technically alive, but its mind is dead. Its will to live is dead.
It's well known that parts of a sexually abused child's mind shut off. Even without violence or actual sex, children who have had the misfortune of feeling sexually desired by adults won't grow up "feeling normal". I didn't.
170
@155, of course if he has a problem I'm there for him, in whatever role he needs from me (adviser, confidante, driver, lover, shoulder to cry on...)
@164 it's not "fetch me my slippers," it's "oh, honey, could you get my slippers please?" But I'll talk to Mr. P. about toning it down in front of the kids. Only 9 more years until they're out of the house anyway, so...
@167 Sorry for any offense in mentioning our gay friends. And for your end question, yes, I assume my kids' hearts will be broken from time to time, as most people's are. Life is pain, highness.
@164 it's not "fetch me my slippers," it's "oh, honey, could you get my slippers please?" But I'll talk to Mr. P. about toning it down in front of the kids. Only 9 more years until they're out of the house anyway, so...
@167 Sorry for any offense in mentioning our gay friends. And for your end question, yes, I assume my kids' hearts will be broken from time to time, as most people's are. Life is pain, highness.
171
Boom. I gotta say 163 has it. Very well said! The reason it is inappropriate is not so much the inherent danger/non-danger of sex itself, it is the power inequality that exists naturally in any child-adult relationship.
It is the same reason sexual offers between a boss and subordinate are inappropriate. There is nothing inherently wrong with a non-threatening sexual invitation from one adult to another. However, an unequal power dynamic has the potential to make any sexual advance threatening. Perhaps the boss really would be ok with rejection. Perhaps the subordinate would indeed choose to fuck the boss even if the boss were not the boss, but of course, perhaps he/she would not. The issue is not that having consensual sex with a boss is in and of itself "bad"; it is that there will always be the potential for duress or coercion within that interaction, given the framework. We have to err on the side of reducing those outcomes, so even consensual relationships between bosses and subordinates are inappropriate in practice.
Now I suppose we could have genuine discussion about what age at which adolescents start to approach adults in terms of equal footing in relationships. That doesn’t seem to have a clear-cut answer.
It is the same reason sexual offers between a boss and subordinate are inappropriate. There is nothing inherently wrong with a non-threatening sexual invitation from one adult to another. However, an unequal power dynamic has the potential to make any sexual advance threatening. Perhaps the boss really would be ok with rejection. Perhaps the subordinate would indeed choose to fuck the boss even if the boss were not the boss, but of course, perhaps he/she would not. The issue is not that having consensual sex with a boss is in and of itself "bad"; it is that there will always be the potential for duress or coercion within that interaction, given the framework. We have to err on the side of reducing those outcomes, so even consensual relationships between bosses and subordinates are inappropriate in practice.
Now I suppose we could have genuine discussion about what age at which adolescents start to approach adults in terms of equal footing in relationships. That doesn’t seem to have a clear-cut answer.
173
@169 sissoucat
Thank you.
@EricaP
PDAs are problematic even when they fall into the hetero-vanilla-normative category. You need to understand that BDSM in all its variations is deviant. Therefore any BDSM related PDA is going to be ill-received indeed. Don't you know you're a pervert? ;-) Next thing you know two men will be permitted to kiss on TV and we don't want to see that do we? No one wants the gays shoving their sexuality in our faces. (this is sarcasm people)
@ankylosaur
I hate to put it this way but you're just wrong. Sex with kids is out of bounds and to even discuss hypotheticals is a mistake. You must know that this will never go anywhere so pragmatically it's a moot point while the discussion itself poses serious problems. It has consequences. I appreciate that you want to discuss this academically but it's too high an obstacle to surmount in a society that criminalizes certain kinds of sexual doodling. If you want to change attitudes start with that. Maybe you can work up to underage sex dolls if you can get that done first.
Thank you.
@EricaP
PDAs are problematic even when they fall into the hetero-vanilla-normative category. You need to understand that BDSM in all its variations is deviant. Therefore any BDSM related PDA is going to be ill-received indeed. Don't you know you're a pervert? ;-) Next thing you know two men will be permitted to kiss on TV and we don't want to see that do we? No one wants the gays shoving their sexuality in our faces. (this is sarcasm people)
@ankylosaur
I hate to put it this way but you're just wrong. Sex with kids is out of bounds and to even discuss hypotheticals is a mistake. You must know that this will never go anywhere so pragmatically it's a moot point while the discussion itself poses serious problems. It has consequences. I appreciate that you want to discuss this academically but it's too high an obstacle to surmount in a society that criminalizes certain kinds of sexual doodling. If you want to change attitudes start with that. Maybe you can work up to underage sex dolls if you can get that done first.
174
@171
It doesn't need an answer. There is an age cutoff for a good reason.
Normal adults can easily confine themselves to having sex with other adults. You don't need to fuck kids. What is the urgency to go below the age limit we've agreed upon?
It doesn't need an answer. There is an age cutoff for a good reason.
Normal adults can easily confine themselves to having sex with other adults. You don't need to fuck kids. What is the urgency to go below the age limit we've agreed upon?
175
TRIGGER WARNING...
@laurelgardner&ssioucat, on power imbalance.
Power is indeed an important element in any relationship between adults and children, because adults so obviously 'control' things. Which is why playing sports with children is certainly not like playing sports with adults. There's nothing a child can do to beat an adult in a sport: adults are bigger, stronger, react more quickly, have more resistence and stamina... If sports with children were about 'who wins' and 'competition' (as sports between adults only -- or between children only -- can be), then there would be no fun in it -- the adult would simply always win.
And yet we can engage meaningfully in sports with children, because, in this case, the motive is not 'winning' or 'defeating the oponent'.
On the question of 'meaningful consent': indeed, because sex is Such A Loded Topic With Lots of Baggage In It (Sex Is Dangerous) in our society, consent becomes a complicated thing, which you can only give if You Know Already Everything.
And if we stay behind the premises of our society, that is indeed the case. Again I reiterate -- this is the reason why my advice to CWIA is 'get help/therapy', 'find some way to control your urges', etc.
But if our society were to change...
If a child can meaningfully consent to a game, or to playing sports -- and they can: if they have the choice, and say "yes!" to playing chess, do we say their consent is meaningless because they don't Know Everything about the game?
I really do think that our attitudes about sex and minors -- and sex and children -- do reflect in the end our beliefs about sex itself. So if you feel like answering my question above, please answer this question first: what's sex to you? And what are its dangers?
More...
@laurelgardner&ssioucat, on power imbalance.
Power is indeed an important element in any relationship between adults and children, because adults so obviously 'control' things. Which is why playing sports with children is certainly not like playing sports with adults. There's nothing a child can do to beat an adult in a sport: adults are bigger, stronger, react more quickly, have more resistence and stamina... If sports with children were about 'who wins' and 'competition' (as sports between adults only -- or between children only -- can be), then there would be no fun in it -- the adult would simply always win.
And yet we can engage meaningfully in sports with children, because, in this case, the motive is not 'winning' or 'defeating the oponent'.
On the question of 'meaningful consent': indeed, because sex is Such A Loded Topic With Lots of Baggage In It (Sex Is Dangerous) in our society, consent becomes a complicated thing, which you can only give if You Know Already Everything.
And if we stay behind the premises of our society, that is indeed the case. Again I reiterate -- this is the reason why my advice to CWIA is 'get help/therapy', 'find some way to control your urges', etc.
But if our society were to change...
If a child can meaningfully consent to a game, or to playing sports -- and they can: if they have the choice, and say "yes!" to playing chess, do we say their consent is meaningless because they don't Know Everything about the game?
I really do think that our attitudes about sex and minors -- and sex and children -- do reflect in the end our beliefs about sex itself. So if you feel like answering my question above, please answer this question first: what's sex to you? And what are its dangers?
176
Ankylosaur (and in a less direct way, EricaP):
Back @129, you made some assumptions about me, my thinking, and the way I raise my children that are wrong. You said:
"which means, in principle, that you would feel better if the PDA went against "typical" gender roles -- i.e., if it was the sub hubby smiling after deferring to his wife's opinion on how to load the dishwasher?
So you wouldn't expect all other sources of influence (TV, school, friends, etc.) to counterbalance this? Plus, of course, the conversations parents have with their children about boys and girls and equality (a context in which an explanation for the sub spouse's smile might be embedded)?"
First of all, I'm not that absolute, nor do I try to control the environment that thoroughly. Now that Erica has amended her original description to say that Mr. P occasionally asks her to replace a glass in the dishwasher, the scenario is less disturbing to me, but as a rule, I would have to say that I wouldn't want my children witnessing anyone micro-controlling another person's method of doing a household chore--whether the other person smiles or not. I know too many women who wish their husbands would help out around the house more, yet criticize every attempt to help with a chore that the wife somehow comes to feel is in her domain. She ends up hovering over, correcting him, or decides that he is incompetent and does the chore herself, while he likely doesn't appreciate his efforts being belittled and criticized. A generation of these women grew up in families and saw this dynamic enacted, and I'd like people to give up ownership of domestic chores and accept that different people have different ways of doing them, and that the goal is to share the labor/drudgery.
And the smiling at being told what to do is unnatural. The natural reaction would be to feel resentful. So children either get a Stepford Wife-vibe, or make assumptions in the way that OK's mother did, or they sense that there's a private joke going on. If it's the joke, that's one thing, but if not, I would be concerned that they either think mom's being abused or that mom is paying lip-service to her feminism, and is a believer in the subservience of women. They may also decide (for good reason, based on the evidence) that their dad is an asshole.
More...
Back @129, you made some assumptions about me, my thinking, and the way I raise my children that are wrong. You said:
"which means, in principle, that you would feel better if the PDA went against "typical" gender roles -- i.e., if it was the sub hubby smiling after deferring to his wife's opinion on how to load the dishwasher?
So you wouldn't expect all other sources of influence (TV, school, friends, etc.) to counterbalance this? Plus, of course, the conversations parents have with their children about boys and girls and equality (a context in which an explanation for the sub spouse's smile might be embedded)?"
First of all, I'm not that absolute, nor do I try to control the environment that thoroughly. Now that Erica has amended her original description to say that Mr. P occasionally asks her to replace a glass in the dishwasher, the scenario is less disturbing to me, but as a rule, I would have to say that I wouldn't want my children witnessing anyone micro-controlling another person's method of doing a household chore--whether the other person smiles or not. I know too many women who wish their husbands would help out around the house more, yet criticize every attempt to help with a chore that the wife somehow comes to feel is in her domain. She ends up hovering over, correcting him, or decides that he is incompetent and does the chore herself, while he likely doesn't appreciate his efforts being belittled and criticized. A generation of these women grew up in families and saw this dynamic enacted, and I'd like people to give up ownership of domestic chores and accept that different people have different ways of doing them, and that the goal is to share the labor/drudgery.
And the smiling at being told what to do is unnatural. The natural reaction would be to feel resentful. So children either get a Stepford Wife-vibe, or make assumptions in the way that OK's mother did, or they sense that there's a private joke going on. If it's the joke, that's one thing, but if not, I would be concerned that they either think mom's being abused or that mom is paying lip-service to her feminism, and is a believer in the subservience of women. They may also decide (for good reason, based on the evidence) that their dad is an asshole.
177
Still on Ankylosaur's #89 message. Still triggering.
"there are safe ways of indulging in it -- from pornography to sex with children under controlled situations"
Using child pornography, you think it's safe and ethic ? Watching a child being tortured to death by its internal organs ? Encouraging people to torture children for financial gain ?
Sex in a controlled situation - exactly who would control the situation ? Do you mean the pedophile, other adults, or the child ?
Other adults have no way to know how the child really feels. If asked, the child will say whatever will most probably let him/her survive the ordeal. That is : go along, and pretend that everything is all right. Have you ever seen how frightened children behave ?
As for a situation controlled by the child. Ask yourself : could a 6-year-old control a sexual scene ? A 5-year-old doesn't even understand time the way we do - tomorrow and yesterday are clear, but "in an hour" or "in a few minutes" are about the same, and the succession of the days of the week are still a trouble. A child those ages cannot cross the street alone - the brain can't evaluate properly the cars' movements. How could a child control a sexual interaction, something he/she has as many clues of, as how it feels to be sucked into a black hole ?
"there are safe ways of indulging in it -- from pornography to sex with children under controlled situations"
Using child pornography, you think it's safe and ethic ? Watching a child being tortured to death by its internal organs ? Encouraging people to torture children for financial gain ?
Sex in a controlled situation - exactly who would control the situation ? Do you mean the pedophile, other adults, or the child ?
Other adults have no way to know how the child really feels. If asked, the child will say whatever will most probably let him/her survive the ordeal. That is : go along, and pretend that everything is all right. Have you ever seen how frightened children behave ?
As for a situation controlled by the child. Ask yourself : could a 6-year-old control a sexual scene ? A 5-year-old doesn't even understand time the way we do - tomorrow and yesterday are clear, but "in an hour" or "in a few minutes" are about the same, and the succession of the days of the week are still a trouble. A child those ages cannot cross the street alone - the brain can't evaluate properly the cars' movements. How could a child control a sexual interaction, something he/she has as many clues of, as how it feels to be sucked into a black hole ?
178
Ankylosaur:
There are times and/or subjects for having purely analytical discussions, but the subject of sex between adults and children isn't one of them, either now, or ever, for all the reasons of power-imbalance and the effect of knowing that you're desired sexually articulated very powerfully by laurelgardner @163 and sissoucat @169.
I also take issue with your "playing sports with kids" analogy, which rests upon your stand that sex is "Such A Loded Topic With Lots of Baggage In It (Sex Is Dangerous)," which you disagree with as an artificial socio-cultural construct.
Well, I'll put my foot in it and say that yes, for me, and many, many people, sex is different from almost any other activity. It carries baggage, not necessarily dangerous baggage, but emotional, mental, psychological baggage. Even those of us that have a ton of random, meaningless sex, put sex in a special category. It isn't just a physical act/sensation akin to scratching an itch, drinking a glass of ice water on a hot day, stretching after sitting for a long time, or any other analogy you can come up with.
I will refrain from bringing your own child into this, except to say that if you examine your own feelings, you would probably not think that if only we were all more culturally relaxed about sex, you would be fine with a 30-year-old having "consensual" sex with her.
I know you are on a crusade to take all the negative associations away from sex, but the way to do that is not to insist, theoretically and academically, that sex is just another physical activity. Sex *is* meaningful, in a variety of ways, differently to different people, and trying to rid it of all its accompanying baggage is probably not only impossible, but may well be undesirable.
With your 'let's-think-of-how-sex-between-an-adult-and-a-child-can-be-a-good-thing-if-we-remove-the-erroneous-idea-that-sex-is-a-BIG-DEAL' line of thought, in my opinion, you've crossed that undesirable line.
More...
There are times and/or subjects for having purely analytical discussions, but the subject of sex between adults and children isn't one of them, either now, or ever, for all the reasons of power-imbalance and the effect of knowing that you're desired sexually articulated very powerfully by laurelgardner @163 and sissoucat @169.
I also take issue with your "playing sports with kids" analogy, which rests upon your stand that sex is "Such A Loded Topic With Lots of Baggage In It (Sex Is Dangerous)," which you disagree with as an artificial socio-cultural construct.
Well, I'll put my foot in it and say that yes, for me, and many, many people, sex is different from almost any other activity. It carries baggage, not necessarily dangerous baggage, but emotional, mental, psychological baggage. Even those of us that have a ton of random, meaningless sex, put sex in a special category. It isn't just a physical act/sensation akin to scratching an itch, drinking a glass of ice water on a hot day, stretching after sitting for a long time, or any other analogy you can come up with.
I will refrain from bringing your own child into this, except to say that if you examine your own feelings, you would probably not think that if only we were all more culturally relaxed about sex, you would be fine with a 30-year-old having "consensual" sex with her.
I know you are on a crusade to take all the negative associations away from sex, but the way to do that is not to insist, theoretically and academically, that sex is just another physical activity. Sex *is* meaningful, in a variety of ways, differently to different people, and trying to rid it of all its accompanying baggage is probably not only impossible, but may well be undesirable.
With your 'let's-think-of-how-sex-between-an-adult-and-a-child-can-be-a-good-thing-if-we-remove-the-erroneous-idea-that-sex-is-a-BIG-DEAL' line of thought, in my opinion, you've crossed that undesirable line.
179
Ms Erica - I was hoping you would take it as a compliment. That bit was an afterthought - having been disgustingly sincere earlier, I needed something frivolous, and they fit the bill ideally. I shall henceforth be only too glad not to think of them again. In fact, I shall emulate Sherlock Holmes and let them occupy the position of the scientific fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
180
Mr. J - While I agree that there does need to be a cutoff, I was just pointing out that whatever age the particular cutoff is is by definition arbitrary. As such, I could see argument about what the cutoff should be, in the same way I could see argument that age 21 is too young/old a cutoff for legal drinking, for instance. But certainly the existence of a cutoff is indeed necessary and the one we have is fine, I was not suggesting otherwise.
181
@ 166. Yes, you may be right that the warning to CWIA not to have children was based on custody considerations rather than fears of incest. I know a good half-dozen same-sex-attracted or bisexual pedophiles who have raised children to full adulthood, as well as many others with younger children, and incest isn't part of their lives or their imaginations. That may seem hard to reconcile with all the family incest stories that dominated the literature of the 1990s, but most of those abusers would be classified as opportunistic, and in most cases their primary orientation was heterosexual. I do know one person who was abused by his father, who then later went on to abuse other boys, but this was a man who was equally aggressive as a heterosexual and would never have conceived of himself as a pedophile. I think we could write him in as a sociopath.
As dramatic as tales of pedophile-sociopathy may be in the press, they have nothing to do with the reality of most pedophiles' lives. Clearly CWIA is not a sociopath. My guess is that he has no desire to be a dad, particularly via the heterosexual route, but that if he were to find himself in that situation, he'd be very conscientious.
On the other hand, if he took his private sexual problems to a counsellor and got himself reported, he could be banned from seeing his kids unaccompanied. That is a very difficult situation to live with.
As dramatic as tales of pedophile-sociopathy may be in the press, they have nothing to do with the reality of most pedophiles' lives. Clearly CWIA is not a sociopath. My guess is that he has no desire to be a dad, particularly via the heterosexual route, but that if he were to find himself in that situation, he'd be very conscientious.
On the other hand, if he took his private sexual problems to a counsellor and got himself reported, he could be banned from seeing his kids unaccompanied. That is a very difficult situation to live with.
182
#89 ankylosaur's message - triggering.
"Given the current cultural scene, however, the chances of this ever being actually rationally discussed in public are the proverbial snowball's chance in hell"
Don't look into the future for acceptance of pedophily. Your considerations on pedophily as being the ultimate sexual barrier were shared by a number of "thinkers" of the 60s-80s in Europe.
At that time, a French national newspaper portrayed a pedophile who was found with a harem of 6-year-old girls in his house as providing for them, and as introducing them to their true selves. The journalist described the abducted girls as "happy and budding little women", whereas their incensed parents were labelled "patriarchal retrogrades". Many intellectuals signed an appeal for the pedophile not to be prosecuted, and for "free love (understand : sex) for children". Quotes from memory, I'm not reading that garbage again.
Since the 80s however, pedophily has been widely condemned - perhaps because people stopped focusing on the glorious accounts that the pedophiles make of their "love for children", and started to listen to the ex-children, recipients of the said "love".
You'll find reading material here (in French, but I know you read it) :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologie_de…
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9doph…
I hope it will open your eyes.
Having sex destroys children, the way it's done matters very little. If anything, "non-violent" could be worse psychically, because a child will often believe he/she is the sole responsible for what happened.
"I fought and I was not strong enough", "I was overpowered" - leaves one with way more self-worth than - "I asked for it", "I'm such a whore that I seduced an unwilling adult and lured him/her into having sex with me ; I'm worthless, I'm a predator, I don't deserve to live".
More...
"Given the current cultural scene, however, the chances of this ever being actually rationally discussed in public are the proverbial snowball's chance in hell"
Don't look into the future for acceptance of pedophily. Your considerations on pedophily as being the ultimate sexual barrier were shared by a number of "thinkers" of the 60s-80s in Europe.
At that time, a French national newspaper portrayed a pedophile who was found with a harem of 6-year-old girls in his house as providing for them, and as introducing them to their true selves. The journalist described the abducted girls as "happy and budding little women", whereas their incensed parents were labelled "patriarchal retrogrades". Many intellectuals signed an appeal for the pedophile not to be prosecuted, and for "free love (understand : sex) for children". Quotes from memory, I'm not reading that garbage again.
Since the 80s however, pedophily has been widely condemned - perhaps because people stopped focusing on the glorious accounts that the pedophiles make of their "love for children", and started to listen to the ex-children, recipients of the said "love".
You'll find reading material here (in French, but I know you read it) :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologie_de…
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9doph…
I hope it will open your eyes.
Having sex destroys children, the way it's done matters very little. If anything, "non-violent" could be worse psychically, because a child will often believe he/she is the sole responsible for what happened.
"I fought and I was not strong enough", "I was overpowered" - leaves one with way more self-worth than - "I asked for it", "I'm such a whore that I seduced an unwilling adult and lured him/her into having sex with me ; I'm worthless, I'm a predator, I don't deserve to live".
183
I love reading your column each week and really enjoy the direct way you deal with people. Can't tell you how many people at work say, "I ask you because I know you will tell me what you think". Though certainly not a shrink nor do I play one on TV but I think you have another avenue to offer this guy. Role play. There are plenty of guys/gals out there who enjoy pretending to be a child in a sexual situation. Perhaps that would be one for this man to release some of the pent up tension that comes from denying who you are and suppressing the feelings inside of you. Who knows, perhaps he might after awhile transfer those feelings to the adults who help him live out his fantasies over time. Just a thought.
184
Love your column can't wait for the Dallas Observer to come out every week so I can read it.
I am not a shrink nor do I play one on TV. However I think you might offer the gay pedophile another way to deal with his predeliction. What about role play? There are plenty of guys/gals in the kink world who enjoy pretending to be a child and going through sexually inappropriate behaviour. Perhaps in time "I can't wish it away" would be able to transfer his sexual desires to the adults he plays with who are pretending to be children. It isn't a great leap to think that after a year of playing with a person who enjoys acting out the child's role that the two would become emotionally attached to each other and perhaps explore other roles or give them up entirely. Just a thought.
I am not a shrink nor do I play one on TV. However I think you might offer the gay pedophile another way to deal with his predeliction. What about role play? There are plenty of guys/gals in the kink world who enjoy pretending to be a child and going through sexually inappropriate behaviour. Perhaps in time "I can't wish it away" would be able to transfer his sexual desires to the adults he plays with who are pretending to be children. It isn't a great leap to think that after a year of playing with a person who enjoys acting out the child's role that the two would become emotionally attached to each other and perhaps explore other roles or give them up entirely. Just a thought.
185
@179, I got tangled up in the later parts of your post @167, so I forgot your sweet comment that I'm modeling "Strength and Informed Choice" - I do thank you for that.
186
116 does in fact sound like a peodophile, and maybe is, definitely sounds like it, but who knows. Excercise is for her benefit, the sex she would have with a pedophile would be for his/her enjoyment. That's the difference, stop rationalizing.
187
Has CWIA looked into ballet dancers? Small, lithe things that tend towards looking young while not being young.
188
Dear CWIA,
I applaud your desire to do the right thing and your courage in coming forward.
I don't know what choice you'll make, but perhaps you would consider chemical castration while undergoing therapy and considering options. Chemical castration isn't permanent--it consists of taking drugs like SSRIs (Prozac, Zoloft) in large enough doses to significantly inhibit libido. But when you stop taking the drugs, your libido should return. Hopefully, you will have learned some combination of coping strategies in the meantime so you won't have to go a whole lifetime without having a "good enough" sex life that provides enough satisfaction.
Sometimes "good enough" is going to have to be enough. For all of us.
Good luck and I wish you well. If there were a support group you could join, that might be helpful. Maybe we here on Slog could be that support group.
I applaud your desire to do the right thing and your courage in coming forward.
I don't know what choice you'll make, but perhaps you would consider chemical castration while undergoing therapy and considering options. Chemical castration isn't permanent--it consists of taking drugs like SSRIs (Prozac, Zoloft) in large enough doses to significantly inhibit libido. But when you stop taking the drugs, your libido should return. Hopefully, you will have learned some combination of coping strategies in the meantime so you won't have to go a whole lifetime without having a "good enough" sex life that provides enough satisfaction.
Sometimes "good enough" is going to have to be enough. For all of us.
Good luck and I wish you well. If there were a support group you could join, that might be helpful. Maybe we here on Slog could be that support group.
189
As always, I'm deeply impressed with Dan's moral compass on #1. He's such a calm, compassionate voice in this field.
190
Anklosaur,
Pretty cool that you're a Dutch-Brazilian with a Ph.D!
I'm just an Anglo-mutt with a BA of Music!
Pretty cool that you're a Dutch-Brazilian with a Ph.D!
I'm just an Anglo-mutt with a BA of Music!
191
@ Mr. J and others - thanks.
Triggering
@175 ankylosaur : sorry, slow writer, I didn't see your answer until after having posted. I hope my previous posts partially answer your remarks.
If you want to know how sex feels like for me, this is how : it feels like I'm millimeters away from a time warp where I'll wake up seeing my father happily pounding away between my legs.
I need to be seriously aroused not to think at least once of being raped by my father, while having sex. I need the lights on to check on my partner's face. Sometimes it's not enough, I need to hear him talk - because it not being my father's voice helps bringing me back. If what's in my head wins - I can't have sex. I can't be touched for a few days.
The least thing that anything sexual with an adult does to children is, forever ruining sex for them as adults.
Would you like that ?
And my case is but a mild one : sometimes I can enjoy sex. I've had orgasms. I guess it's because in reality, I've not been penetrated, and the only reason I wasn't is because I stood firm on my ground.
Nobody helped me out. There were a mother and an older brother in the house, but I was the one to insist on my father wearing underwear when we were both nude-wrestling on his bed and he was doing frottage on me.
Ever been sitting on an male adult's lap as a child, ankylosaur, and he opens up largely his legs, which opens even more your short ones, and you feel his junk touching you ? Think it's nice ?
Surely every girl in the world locks her door at night from the inside to keep her father out ?
But what my body and my mind have felt tens of years ago, in reality or in rape dreams, will never go away. And when it comes back, it doesn't come back as something that happened, it comes back as something happening again, now.
More...
Triggering
@175 ankylosaur : sorry, slow writer, I didn't see your answer until after having posted. I hope my previous posts partially answer your remarks.
If you want to know how sex feels like for me, this is how : it feels like I'm millimeters away from a time warp where I'll wake up seeing my father happily pounding away between my legs.
I need to be seriously aroused not to think at least once of being raped by my father, while having sex. I need the lights on to check on my partner's face. Sometimes it's not enough, I need to hear him talk - because it not being my father's voice helps bringing me back. If what's in my head wins - I can't have sex. I can't be touched for a few days.
The least thing that anything sexual with an adult does to children is, forever ruining sex for them as adults.
Would you like that ?
And my case is but a mild one : sometimes I can enjoy sex. I've had orgasms. I guess it's because in reality, I've not been penetrated, and the only reason I wasn't is because I stood firm on my ground.
Nobody helped me out. There were a mother and an older brother in the house, but I was the one to insist on my father wearing underwear when we were both nude-wrestling on his bed and he was doing frottage on me.
Ever been sitting on an male adult's lap as a child, ankylosaur, and he opens up largely his legs, which opens even more your short ones, and you feel his junk touching you ? Think it's nice ?
Surely every girl in the world locks her door at night from the inside to keep her father out ?
But what my body and my mind have felt tens of years ago, in reality or in rape dreams, will never go away. And when it comes back, it doesn't come back as something that happened, it comes back as something happening again, now.
192
sissoucat, I'm deeply sorry that you had to endure such abuse. I hope you heal a little more with each passing year.
194
Ankylosaur-- Nocutename and others have said it better, but maybe I have something to add. Imagine an experiment, a scientific or social one, that should work. It makes sense that it should work. There are others that can be compared to it that have worked. In theory and in computer models, it should work. But when it's been tried, over and over again, in many models and with many variables changed, IT DOES NOT WORK.
You can compare sex with children to sports with children. You can posit that under different circumstances, with different cultural expectations, under a different paradigm, maybe it could work. Then look at the reality that there are no instances where an adult had sex with a child from an early age, and the child is happy, or mentally healthy, or even functioning at full capacity.
Ah, you counter, how do we know that? How do we know that there aren't now-adult children out there who are happy and well adjusted despite adults in their lives having had sex with them? What if we just change the definition of having sex with them to include things like relaxed attitudes towards nudity which is considered a terrible thing in the west but ordinary in parts of Africa where no one ever wears clothes?
Answer: Nudity is not sex. Sex is not like anything else. Some kids come through the abuse better than others, but no one survives at an advantage; no one is better off for being abused. While you may be able to come up with a story somewhere of someone who says the sex with an adult was okay, it is not a documented case. If it is a documented case, it's a one in a million, and that still doesn't prove that the victim wouldn't have been better off without the sexual activity.
Back to my experiment. If there were a possible good end, if this was like finding the formula that would prevent polio though others have failed, it would be worth it to keep looking, to keep experimenting. But it isn't. There is no good end. So it doesn't make sense to talk about under which circumstances it would be alright for adults to have sex with children. There aren't any.
More...
You can compare sex with children to sports with children. You can posit that under different circumstances, with different cultural expectations, under a different paradigm, maybe it could work. Then look at the reality that there are no instances where an adult had sex with a child from an early age, and the child is happy, or mentally healthy, or even functioning at full capacity.
Ah, you counter, how do we know that? How do we know that there aren't now-adult children out there who are happy and well adjusted despite adults in their lives having had sex with them? What if we just change the definition of having sex with them to include things like relaxed attitudes towards nudity which is considered a terrible thing in the west but ordinary in parts of Africa where no one ever wears clothes?
Answer: Nudity is not sex. Sex is not like anything else. Some kids come through the abuse better than others, but no one survives at an advantage; no one is better off for being abused. While you may be able to come up with a story somewhere of someone who says the sex with an adult was okay, it is not a documented case. If it is a documented case, it's a one in a million, and that still doesn't prove that the victim wouldn't have been better off without the sexual activity.
Back to my experiment. If there were a possible good end, if this was like finding the formula that would prevent polio though others have failed, it would be worth it to keep looking, to keep experimenting. But it isn't. There is no good end. So it doesn't make sense to talk about under which circumstances it would be alright for adults to have sex with children. There aren't any.
195
Ankylosaur - so, let me get this straight: your entire argument, here, is predicated on the idea that sex isn't inherently emotionally different from/more significant than playing chess or baseball?
At the risk of having you sneer at me for not engaging in the same veneer of respectability you are in this argument...that's insanely fucking stupid.
Chess and baseball are not intensely physically and emotionally intimate. Sex is. This isn't a social construct, though we create plenty of social constructs to try to pretend that certain sexual activities DON'T come with a high degree of vulnerability.
This isn't something subjective and it's not something you can sit and philosophize about. It's science. It's psychiatry.
Example: we don't feel vulnerable after orgasm because of social constructs about the meaning of the sex act, we feel vulnerable because orgasm causes dopamine (reward hormone) production to plummet and prolactin (negative, depression, fear hormone) to spike. Someone MIGHT connect this feeling to a social construct (e.g. Catholic guilt) but it's folly to assume that therefore, Catholicism created the bad feelings that are really the result of a natural prolactin surge that's too high.
Chemically, it's not possible for a child with a still-developing brain to experience sex with an adult in a manner that won't have a negative impact. This is an extension of the fact that children are negatively affected whenever they sense that they are being used by adults to fulfill a need they are not yet mature enough to fulfill. It's accurate to say that this stunts a child's emotional growth because it prioritizes the needs of an adult over those of a child while the child has no ability to seek out other avenues to get developmental (nurturing) needs met. The adult, in this situation, is taking where they should be giving. This makes the child less a child, and more like prey or livestock. Rightfully, the child ends up with a deeply-ingrained sense of fear as a result.
The more profound the nature of that "taking" is, the more damaging it is to the child. Asking a child to display age-appropriate maturity, age-appropriate sharing and giving, is not damaging because more basic desires, needs and pleasures are something a child can understand, navigate, communicate about clearly and express personal boundaries regarding. The more complex the needs and desires, the greater the potential for damage.
Sex isn't the only example of too much taking, as I see it. Another common example is adults who use children emotionally as if they were grown-ups. You see this commonly in women who divorce, then use one of their children as emotional replacement for the spouse. Frankly, I think that's just as fucked-up as sexual abuse of children, though it effects them in a different way.
More...
At the risk of having you sneer at me for not engaging in the same veneer of respectability you are in this argument...that's insanely fucking stupid.
Chess and baseball are not intensely physically and emotionally intimate. Sex is. This isn't a social construct, though we create plenty of social constructs to try to pretend that certain sexual activities DON'T come with a high degree of vulnerability.
This isn't something subjective and it's not something you can sit and philosophize about. It's science. It's psychiatry.
Example: we don't feel vulnerable after orgasm because of social constructs about the meaning of the sex act, we feel vulnerable because orgasm causes dopamine (reward hormone) production to plummet and prolactin (negative, depression, fear hormone) to spike. Someone MIGHT connect this feeling to a social construct (e.g. Catholic guilt) but it's folly to assume that therefore, Catholicism created the bad feelings that are really the result of a natural prolactin surge that's too high.
Chemically, it's not possible for a child with a still-developing brain to experience sex with an adult in a manner that won't have a negative impact. This is an extension of the fact that children are negatively affected whenever they sense that they are being used by adults to fulfill a need they are not yet mature enough to fulfill. It's accurate to say that this stunts a child's emotional growth because it prioritizes the needs of an adult over those of a child while the child has no ability to seek out other avenues to get developmental (nurturing) needs met. The adult, in this situation, is taking where they should be giving. This makes the child less a child, and more like prey or livestock. Rightfully, the child ends up with a deeply-ingrained sense of fear as a result.
The more profound the nature of that "taking" is, the more damaging it is to the child. Asking a child to display age-appropriate maturity, age-appropriate sharing and giving, is not damaging because more basic desires, needs and pleasures are something a child can understand, navigate, communicate about clearly and express personal boundaries regarding. The more complex the needs and desires, the greater the potential for damage.
Sex isn't the only example of too much taking, as I see it. Another common example is adults who use children emotionally as if they were grown-ups. You see this commonly in women who divorce, then use one of their children as emotional replacement for the spouse. Frankly, I think that's just as fucked-up as sexual abuse of children, though it effects them in a different way.
196
@ankylosaur,
I usually enjoy your posts, but 89 and 120 have horrified me out of my usual lurking.
Children are taught to swim, first, to protect them. So they are less likely to drown. They don't need to learn how to have sex in case they fall into a situation where this would prove handy.
There is, with swimming, the pleasure of mastering a skill with your body, but again, that doesn't mean children must do it, the earlier the better. Keeping them away from sex doesn't mean making it dirty: it means acknowledging that some things are for adults. Many things take adult judgment to participate in, that natural progression from crossing the street without supervision to driving a car, as one's ability to make good judgments increases. Sex is something where individual choice and judgment are critically important.
I talked to a man who loved baseball and coached kids' teams, and he felt the trend toward younger and younger teams was a mistake: kids who started at 9, when their mental and physical development was ready, could play in the same way as the kids who started earlier. Baseball is complex. I see it with math and the push to introduce algebra earlier and earlier (and I love math and have children good at math): the brain development needs to be there for them to handle the abstract symbolic manipulation. Back off and introduce variables when they're closer to 11, rather than deciding if 8 year olds have trouble with the concept maybe we should introduce it at 6 so they get earlier exposure. (Language is symbolic manipulation that works to introduce early, and writing between speaking and algebra--humans are symbolic manipulation. It does not mean we need to drill our toddlers in calculus to prepare them.)
Children are not just short adults.
More...
I usually enjoy your posts, but 89 and 120 have horrified me out of my usual lurking.
Children are taught to swim, first, to protect them. So they are less likely to drown. They don't need to learn how to have sex in case they fall into a situation where this would prove handy.
There is, with swimming, the pleasure of mastering a skill with your body, but again, that doesn't mean children must do it, the earlier the better. Keeping them away from sex doesn't mean making it dirty: it means acknowledging that some things are for adults. Many things take adult judgment to participate in, that natural progression from crossing the street without supervision to driving a car, as one's ability to make good judgments increases. Sex is something where individual choice and judgment are critically important.
I talked to a man who loved baseball and coached kids' teams, and he felt the trend toward younger and younger teams was a mistake: kids who started at 9, when their mental and physical development was ready, could play in the same way as the kids who started earlier. Baseball is complex. I see it with math and the push to introduce algebra earlier and earlier (and I love math and have children good at math): the brain development needs to be there for them to handle the abstract symbolic manipulation. Back off and introduce variables when they're closer to 11, rather than deciding if 8 year olds have trouble with the concept maybe we should introduce it at 6 so they get earlier exposure. (Language is symbolic manipulation that works to introduce early, and writing between speaking and algebra--humans are symbolic manipulation. It does not mean we need to drill our toddlers in calculus to prepare them.)
Children are not just short adults.
197
@183 - I actually just started work as a phone sex operator. One of my specialties is pretending to be a little girl for pedophile callers.
They know they're really talking to an adult, of course. Many of them are really scared and embarrassed when they're telling me what they want me to do, so I always make it a point to tell them that fantasy isn't right or wrong, but having healthy outlets for desires is a good thing and they should be proud of that. I get the impression many of them have never had the experience of being able to be open about their pedophilia and be accepted by anyone who isn't also a pedophile. When you think about it, that's a real problem because it isolates these people from anyone who could really help them. Their only outlet for understanding is people who are the most likely to enable them.
What I also think is interesting is that it does seem to genuinely turn them on when I say something like, "I may be all grown up, but I still think of myself as a naughty little girl. There's a horny 11-year-old inside me who's desperate to come out and play with you." It's true, albeit in a creative/professional sense and not a personal one.
They know they're really talking to an adult, of course. Many of them are really scared and embarrassed when they're telling me what they want me to do, so I always make it a point to tell them that fantasy isn't right or wrong, but having healthy outlets for desires is a good thing and they should be proud of that. I get the impression many of them have never had the experience of being able to be open about their pedophilia and be accepted by anyone who isn't also a pedophile. When you think about it, that's a real problem because it isolates these people from anyone who could really help them. Their only outlet for understanding is people who are the most likely to enable them.
What I also think is interesting is that it does seem to genuinely turn them on when I say something like, "I may be all grown up, but I still think of myself as a naughty little girl. There's a horny 11-year-old inside me who's desperate to come out and play with you." It's true, albeit in a creative/professional sense and not a personal one.
198
@171
"It is the same reason sexual offers between a boss and subordinate are inappropriate."
I always find this comparison to be severely strained and borderline offensive. But that's me. I don't know what your life experiences are but I assure you that the boss-subordinate sexual experience is nothing like the child-adult sexual relationship.
@187
Did you consider the ballerina when you made this comment? How would you like to be pursued because you are a simalacrum of prepubescence?
"It is the same reason sexual offers between a boss and subordinate are inappropriate."
I always find this comparison to be severely strained and borderline offensive. But that's me. I don't know what your life experiences are but I assure you that the boss-subordinate sexual experience is nothing like the child-adult sexual relationship.
@187
Did you consider the ballerina when you made this comment? How would you like to be pursued because you are a simalacrum of prepubescence?
199
God, this is like a 24-hour news cycle. Spend a few hours outside and you miss a thousand complex and fascinating conversations. I would like to address a bit of the stuff being said about child sex abuse.
Ankylosaur: Sometimes, as an intelligent and critically thinking person, it's hard to turn off the part of your brain which questions every quick gut reaction the public has about something. You believe that somehow, the majority of people could be wrong about sex abuse; that if we all thought differently and changed that it would not be the tragic, viscerally disgusting act people all respond to so quickly.
In many situations, it is the right thing to do--to question public outrage over something, because often when people are very emotionally charged, they're not thinking clearly; furthermore, they usually don't know the specifics of the case they are so passionate about. In this case, however, you are wrong. Public outrage towards pedophilia is fully merited, as the results are so far-reaching and all encompassing in the victim's life. The majority are right here, and even if we could somehow "change" as a society to be accepting of child sex abuse, that does not mean the child would suffer any less--or would it? Such an experiment is obviously not worth doing.
I suspect you are only playing the devil's advocate to test your ability to do so; to craft an argument that is detestable but from your brain, defensible. Hearing a predator discuss their acts, in their own words, or seeing a victim whose ability to have a happy healthy life has been greatly diminished would make you come around and end this nonsense, I think.
Regarding chemical castration: it is no cure-all. Many pedophiles don't just want to abuse children, but also to have relationships with them. Having state-mandated injections allows them to perversely enjoy the company of children while feeling "safe" from acting on their urges. Behaviorally, nothing changes for long. Once they don't have to be injected anymore, guess how many guys voluntarily decide to cut off their sex drive? I have no hard stats, but the answer is very few.
And lastly, regarding required disclosure: So far in my education, I have learned that a therapist does not disclose unless there is a specific, immediate threat to someone's health or life. CWIA ought not be afraid to tell a therapist about his attraction to children. If a client said to me "I just feel like killing someone," I don't call the cops to have him followed to see if he follow through with it. If he said "I'm going to kill my roommate," then yes, I'd need to call. I would guess it'd be same with child abuse, but I'm also thinking it varies from state to state.
More...
Ankylosaur: Sometimes, as an intelligent and critically thinking person, it's hard to turn off the part of your brain which questions every quick gut reaction the public has about something. You believe that somehow, the majority of people could be wrong about sex abuse; that if we all thought differently and changed that it would not be the tragic, viscerally disgusting act people all respond to so quickly.
In many situations, it is the right thing to do--to question public outrage over something, because often when people are very emotionally charged, they're not thinking clearly; furthermore, they usually don't know the specifics of the case they are so passionate about. In this case, however, you are wrong. Public outrage towards pedophilia is fully merited, as the results are so far-reaching and all encompassing in the victim's life. The majority are right here, and even if we could somehow "change" as a society to be accepting of child sex abuse, that does not mean the child would suffer any less--or would it? Such an experiment is obviously not worth doing.
I suspect you are only playing the devil's advocate to test your ability to do so; to craft an argument that is detestable but from your brain, defensible. Hearing a predator discuss their acts, in their own words, or seeing a victim whose ability to have a happy healthy life has been greatly diminished would make you come around and end this nonsense, I think.
Regarding chemical castration: it is no cure-all. Many pedophiles don't just want to abuse children, but also to have relationships with them. Having state-mandated injections allows them to perversely enjoy the company of children while feeling "safe" from acting on their urges. Behaviorally, nothing changes for long. Once they don't have to be injected anymore, guess how many guys voluntarily decide to cut off their sex drive? I have no hard stats, but the answer is very few.
And lastly, regarding required disclosure: So far in my education, I have learned that a therapist does not disclose unless there is a specific, immediate threat to someone's health or life. CWIA ought not be afraid to tell a therapist about his attraction to children. If a client said to me "I just feel like killing someone," I don't call the cops to have him followed to see if he follow through with it. If he said "I'm going to kill my roommate," then yes, I'd need to call. I would guess it'd be same with child abuse, but I'm also thinking it varies from state to state.
200
I actually hadn't read #120 before, but now that I have, I'm kind of sick to my stomach.
Let me say, ankylosaur, that while I am in favor with taking away the negative, shameful, aspects of sexuality, I don't think it is even possible to turn sex into just another physical activity, like swimming or yoga, or a game like chess--and even if it were, that might not be what we want. (I happen to want my sex to be a little dirty. I recently had sex with a guy who stayed bright and chipper throughout, who couldn't make it dirty at all, and it was No Fun.)
Many of us want our children to grow up to have vibrant, happy, satisfying sex lives--part of my upset at my daughter's having been brutally raped at age 16, before she'd had any sexual experience whatsoever, is the thought that she may forever associate sex with feelings of terror, horror, brutality, and pain.
I want her to love sex, but it isn't my job, as her parent to teach her how to love sex (even if she hadn't been through her particular trauma). There is nothing comparable about teaching a child to swim or to play chess or to do anything else to having sex. Kids will figure out what they like sexually, all by themselves, or with peers, hopefully when they're old enough to make free and informed choices, and hopefully with enough psychological health and self-knowledge to navigate those aspects of sex. Parents or other adults can help kids achieve this by talking openly about sex with kids, by answering questions honestly, by not projecting their own issues during discussions, by not imbuing sex with shame or guilt or a sense of sinfulness. They can help a young person acquire birth control, or help get rid of an STI by steering them to a doctor. They can remain loving, supportive, and non-judgmental when they talk to the kids and when they are confronted with the reality that the young person (not a child, btw, but a teen, and hopefully one past the mid-point of teenager-ness, say, 15 or older, preferably older, for my comfort zone, although I realize that that arbitrary age is my bias.)is having sex.
But that's all they need to do. They do not need to introduce the child to actual sexual activity to set the stage for the child to have a wonderful sex life for the rest of his/her life. To talk about how an adult could baby-step a sexual situation with a child, even though I'm pretty sure you meant it only theoretically, is beyond repulsive, and no amount of utopian hypothosizing about that day when all taboos are eradicated masks that.
More...
Let me say, ankylosaur, that while I am in favor with taking away the negative, shameful, aspects of sexuality, I don't think it is even possible to turn sex into just another physical activity, like swimming or yoga, or a game like chess--and even if it were, that might not be what we want. (I happen to want my sex to be a little dirty. I recently had sex with a guy who stayed bright and chipper throughout, who couldn't make it dirty at all, and it was No Fun.)
Many of us want our children to grow up to have vibrant, happy, satisfying sex lives--part of my upset at my daughter's having been brutally raped at age 16, before she'd had any sexual experience whatsoever, is the thought that she may forever associate sex with feelings of terror, horror, brutality, and pain.
I want her to love sex, but it isn't my job, as her parent to teach her how to love sex (even if she hadn't been through her particular trauma). There is nothing comparable about teaching a child to swim or to play chess or to do anything else to having sex. Kids will figure out what they like sexually, all by themselves, or with peers, hopefully when they're old enough to make free and informed choices, and hopefully with enough psychological health and self-knowledge to navigate those aspects of sex. Parents or other adults can help kids achieve this by talking openly about sex with kids, by answering questions honestly, by not projecting their own issues during discussions, by not imbuing sex with shame or guilt or a sense of sinfulness. They can help a young person acquire birth control, or help get rid of an STI by steering them to a doctor. They can remain loving, supportive, and non-judgmental when they talk to the kids and when they are confronted with the reality that the young person (not a child, btw, but a teen, and hopefully one past the mid-point of teenager-ness, say, 15 or older, preferably older, for my comfort zone, although I realize that that arbitrary age is my bias.)is having sex.
But that's all they need to do. They do not need to introduce the child to actual sexual activity to set the stage for the child to have a wonderful sex life for the rest of his/her life. To talk about how an adult could baby-step a sexual situation with a child, even though I'm pretty sure you meant it only theoretically, is beyond repulsive, and no amount of utopian hypothosizing about that day when all taboos are eradicated masks that.
201
Also, sex *should not* be just another physical activity! It is an intimate act that ideally, two people give to one another joyfully and without shame. It can bond people together in a way that other things simply don't do. It's thrilling and deeply personal. Not that all sex has to be that way, but am I crazy to think that we should still have things that are special and private in this world? Things that are, in an ideal world, contemplated somewhat maturely and entered into as a personal choice?
On the contrary of what Ank is saying, sex is one thing we ought to have little involvement in as parents, physically speaking. Answer their questions, guide them into a healthy mindset about it, help them make good choices but don't make the goddamn choice *for* them about what sex will mean to them by actually introducing it at a young age.
The more I consider this discussion, the stupider it is.
HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE GRAZY?!
On the contrary of what Ank is saying, sex is one thing we ought to have little involvement in as parents, physically speaking. Answer their questions, guide them into a healthy mindset about it, help them make good choices but don't make the goddamn choice *for* them about what sex will mean to them by actually introducing it at a young age.
The more I consider this discussion, the stupider it is.
HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE GRAZY?!
202
Also, sex *should not* be just another physical activity! It is an intimate act that ideally, two people give to one another joyfully and without shame. It can bond people together in a way that other things simply don't do. It's thrilling and deeply personal. Not that all sex has to be that way, but am I crazy to think that we should still have things that are special and private in this world? Things that are, in an ideal world, contemplated somewhat maturely and entered into as a personal choice?
On the contrary of what Ank is saying, sex is one thing we ought to have little involvement in as parents, physically speaking. Answer their questions, guide them into a healthy mindset about it, help them make good choices but don't make the goddamn choice *for* them about what sex will mean to them by actually introducing it at a young age.
The more I consider this discussion, the stupider it is.
HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?!
On the contrary of what Ank is saying, sex is one thing we ought to have little involvement in as parents, physically speaking. Answer their questions, guide them into a healthy mindset about it, help them make good choices but don't make the goddamn choice *for* them about what sex will mean to them by actually introducing it at a young age.
The more I consider this discussion, the stupider it is.
HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?!
204
@ ankylosaur re: sex with kids
You're basing your reasoning on an erroneous premise: in a sex positive world, sex is harmless for children. That is simply not the case.
Children are not autonomous. And the younger the child, the less autonomous they are. They must rely on adults to provide for their basic needs, and that creates an imbalance of power. Children cannot give consent because their consent will always be coerced (intentionally or not). If a child's caregivers are involved in OKing the proposed sex act (and that would be necessary in order to provide the child with an adult advocate) the child, in denying consent, would always risk negative ramifications. Would a sex positive society ever say that it is okay to have sex with someone who is unconscious? Of course not, because an unconscious person is unable to give consent. And even if we view sex as 100% positive, sex without consent is always rape. Therefore, sex with a child is always rape and cannot be emotionally benign.
Sex with a child also cannot be physically benign. Children are much smaller than adults. Even if we assume that their bodies are fully capable of stretching in the required areas in the same way that an adult's body can, we must aknowledge that in order to be the non-insertive partner with an adult their bodies would need to stretch substantially more (relatively speaking). Certainly you could condition a child's body over time to allow for intercourse, but you would be subjecting a child to a painful process for the benefit of the adult. And that brings us back into the realm of psychological harm. By conditioning a child for the benefit of an adult, we are treating the child not as a human being but rather as a means to an end. You are proposing that children be used for sex.
Additionally, there are certain logistic aspects to consider as well. If girls are to be used in this manner at all once they begin puberty, there is a risk of pregnancy. Since condoms are much less effective than the pill, the pill would likely be the contraceptive of choice. But hormonal birth control causes a wide range of unpleasant side effects and has even been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this, it is not 100% effective. So what would happen in the event that a young child becomes pregnant as a result of being used for nonconsensual sex? Would you force her to give birth? If so, who would raise her child? Alternatively, would you put her through the emotional trauma of an abortion? She likely wouldn't be able to fully grasp the ramifications of the procedure as a 12 year old but she most certainly would a few years later.
What you have proposed isn't about a "sex is bad" mindset. It is about cost benefit analysis and a basic grasp of morality. The child would bear the brunt of the costs (any potential benefits derived from sex are not lost if the child begins to have sex at 16 rather than 6 so they are irrelevant to the discussion) and the adult would reap the benefits. A nonconsenting child (remember, children are not autonomous so they can never consent) would be used as a means to achieve an end: the pleasure of an adult. And that is immoral. It is immoral in a sex positive society and it is immoral in a sex negative society.
More...
You're basing your reasoning on an erroneous premise: in a sex positive world, sex is harmless for children. That is simply not the case.
Children are not autonomous. And the younger the child, the less autonomous they are. They must rely on adults to provide for their basic needs, and that creates an imbalance of power. Children cannot give consent because their consent will always be coerced (intentionally or not). If a child's caregivers are involved in OKing the proposed sex act (and that would be necessary in order to provide the child with an adult advocate) the child, in denying consent, would always risk negative ramifications. Would a sex positive society ever say that it is okay to have sex with someone who is unconscious? Of course not, because an unconscious person is unable to give consent. And even if we view sex as 100% positive, sex without consent is always rape. Therefore, sex with a child is always rape and cannot be emotionally benign.
Sex with a child also cannot be physically benign. Children are much smaller than adults. Even if we assume that their bodies are fully capable of stretching in the required areas in the same way that an adult's body can, we must aknowledge that in order to be the non-insertive partner with an adult their bodies would need to stretch substantially more (relatively speaking). Certainly you could condition a child's body over time to allow for intercourse, but you would be subjecting a child to a painful process for the benefit of the adult. And that brings us back into the realm of psychological harm. By conditioning a child for the benefit of an adult, we are treating the child not as a human being but rather as a means to an end. You are proposing that children be used for sex.
Additionally, there are certain logistic aspects to consider as well. If girls are to be used in this manner at all once they begin puberty, there is a risk of pregnancy. Since condoms are much less effective than the pill, the pill would likely be the contraceptive of choice. But hormonal birth control causes a wide range of unpleasant side effects and has even been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this, it is not 100% effective. So what would happen in the event that a young child becomes pregnant as a result of being used for nonconsensual sex? Would you force her to give birth? If so, who would raise her child? Alternatively, would you put her through the emotional trauma of an abortion? She likely wouldn't be able to fully grasp the ramifications of the procedure as a 12 year old but she most certainly would a few years later.
What you have proposed isn't about a "sex is bad" mindset. It is about cost benefit analysis and a basic grasp of morality. The child would bear the brunt of the costs (any potential benefits derived from sex are not lost if the child begins to have sex at 16 rather than 6 so they are irrelevant to the discussion) and the adult would reap the benefits. A nonconsenting child (remember, children are not autonomous so they can never consent) would be used as a means to achieve an end: the pleasure of an adult. And that is immoral. It is immoral in a sex positive society and it is immoral in a sex negative society.
206
@204:
Good points, and I like that you stayed logical throughout, since the original argument was couched in similar language.
Thanks.
Good points, and I like that you stayed logical throughout, since the original argument was couched in similar language.
Thanks.
208
@24 Crinoline, CWIA, and the responses thereto:
Anyone with the slightest grasp of world culture, history, biology, etc., ought to be able to figure out that it's not inherently immoral to have sex with anyone below a certain magical age. Humans usually reach sexual maturity somewhere between ages 9 and 15, depending on many factors. Some never do. Furthermore, there are surely "young boys" of age 12 who are far more capable of having emotionally healthy sex than are millions of adults.
So there's the moral question: is what CWIA wants to do intrinsically immoral? Can anyone cite a study showing that anyone below 18 _will_ be harmed by fucking (unless married, in which case 15 or younger depending on some magical link to GPS coordinates)? Or that anyone over 18 _won't_ be? Or, indeed, that a horny 12-year-old is better off fucking another horny 12-year-old than someone twice his age?
So the question isn't about protecting society. Comments about counselling/castration/etc are exactly what Crinoline says: trying to help CWIA fit into a society that demands certain illogical behaviours. It is helpful to note the difference between [telling CWIA that he must conform or go to hell] and [telling CWIA how he might conform, should he choose to].
So there are other options. Move to a country that doesn't illegalise such behaviour--given CWIA's ethical behaviour so far, I'd have no doubt at all that he'd only have sex responsibly. Or of course become a Catholic priest--they have free access to young boys and the protection of an organisation apparently more powerful than the US government. Again, I'm sure he'd find some boys who were willing.
Is it possible to do lasting harm to a "young boy" by having sex with him? Obviously--we see the effects frequently. Is it always going to happen to anyone under 18? That seems unlikely. Please don't confuse what's ethical with what's legal.
That said, CWIA is trying to conform to current USA cultural norms. Counselling may well be his best bet for that goal.
MiscKitty@204: "children are not autonomous so they can never consent": how do you tell the difference between someone who can give consent and someone who can't? That is--what's a child? Please try to do better than some arbitrary tripe linking childhood to counting the vibrations of a cesium atom, okay?
More...
Anyone with the slightest grasp of world culture, history, biology, etc., ought to be able to figure out that it's not inherently immoral to have sex with anyone below a certain magical age. Humans usually reach sexual maturity somewhere between ages 9 and 15, depending on many factors. Some never do. Furthermore, there are surely "young boys" of age 12 who are far more capable of having emotionally healthy sex than are millions of adults.
So there's the moral question: is what CWIA wants to do intrinsically immoral? Can anyone cite a study showing that anyone below 18 _will_ be harmed by fucking (unless married, in which case 15 or younger depending on some magical link to GPS coordinates)? Or that anyone over 18 _won't_ be? Or, indeed, that a horny 12-year-old is better off fucking another horny 12-year-old than someone twice his age?
So the question isn't about protecting society. Comments about counselling/castration/etc are exactly what Crinoline says: trying to help CWIA fit into a society that demands certain illogical behaviours. It is helpful to note the difference between [telling CWIA that he must conform or go to hell] and [telling CWIA how he might conform, should he choose to].
So there are other options. Move to a country that doesn't illegalise such behaviour--given CWIA's ethical behaviour so far, I'd have no doubt at all that he'd only have sex responsibly. Or of course become a Catholic priest--they have free access to young boys and the protection of an organisation apparently more powerful than the US government. Again, I'm sure he'd find some boys who were willing.
Is it possible to do lasting harm to a "young boy" by having sex with him? Obviously--we see the effects frequently. Is it always going to happen to anyone under 18? That seems unlikely. Please don't confuse what's ethical with what's legal.
That said, CWIA is trying to conform to current USA cultural norms. Counselling may well be his best bet for that goal.
MiscKitty@204: "children are not autonomous so they can never consent": how do you tell the difference between someone who can give consent and someone who can't? That is--what's a child? Please try to do better than some arbitrary tripe linking childhood to counting the vibrations of a cesium atom, okay?
209
Warning! Many triggers!
204-- Good points, but not inclusive enough or not expansive enough. You're concentrating on penetrative sex. I maintain that any situation where the adult is turned on by a child has the potential, even the likelihood, to be damaging to the child. Imagine two situations which, on the surface, are similar.
In one, a father gives his 5 year old daughter a bath. She's not quite old enough to bathe herself. Maybe she's been ill. One way or the other, he gets her in the soapy water, runs a washcloth over her body, helps her rinse off, then dry off, get in clean pajamas. He reads her a story and puts her to bed. He does this lovingly and parentally. He is assuredly not turned on. If anything, he wishes his wife were home partly because he misses her and is turned on by her and partly because if his wife were home, she'd be doing the childcare while he watched television. He's a little selfish that way.
In the next scenario, the pedophile gives his daughter a bath, but he is turned on. Though dressed while kneeling by the tub, he's hard. He masturbates as soon as the lullaby is over and he's alone in his room. He is not thinking about his wife. He is thinking about the naked little girl in the tub.
I maintain the girl in the 2nd scenario has been abused while the first has not. While she may not be able to articulate why she feels so icky, something is horrible about that situation, and she's likely to feel it in a variety of ways for years to come. This is not because of a lack of autonomy. Neither girl is autonomous. This is not because of the power imbalance. Both fathers hold the power. This has nothing to do with the damage to their young bodies. Neither has been penetrated. It has to do with what I can't name or describe either, but being the object of sexual desire in that way is horrible and damaging. Maybe the psychologists who work in helping the abused to heal can explain it better than I.
More...
204-- Good points, but not inclusive enough or not expansive enough. You're concentrating on penetrative sex. I maintain that any situation where the adult is turned on by a child has the potential, even the likelihood, to be damaging to the child. Imagine two situations which, on the surface, are similar.
In one, a father gives his 5 year old daughter a bath. She's not quite old enough to bathe herself. Maybe she's been ill. One way or the other, he gets her in the soapy water, runs a washcloth over her body, helps her rinse off, then dry off, get in clean pajamas. He reads her a story and puts her to bed. He does this lovingly and parentally. He is assuredly not turned on. If anything, he wishes his wife were home partly because he misses her and is turned on by her and partly because if his wife were home, she'd be doing the childcare while he watched television. He's a little selfish that way.
In the next scenario, the pedophile gives his daughter a bath, but he is turned on. Though dressed while kneeling by the tub, he's hard. He masturbates as soon as the lullaby is over and he's alone in his room. He is not thinking about his wife. He is thinking about the naked little girl in the tub.
I maintain the girl in the 2nd scenario has been abused while the first has not. While she may not be able to articulate why she feels so icky, something is horrible about that situation, and she's likely to feel it in a variety of ways for years to come. This is not because of a lack of autonomy. Neither girl is autonomous. This is not because of the power imbalance. Both fathers hold the power. This has nothing to do with the damage to their young bodies. Neither has been penetrated. It has to do with what I can't name or describe either, but being the object of sexual desire in that way is horrible and damaging. Maybe the psychologists who work in helping the abused to heal can explain it better than I.
210
@135 Maybe he'll never be attracted to his own kids, or maybe not. Is it worth the risk?? Also, if he has kids, he will them be around LOTS of other kids. School, soccer games, friends coming over, etc.
TRIGGER ALERT:
Thanks to all of you who responded so well to anklyosaur. I went to bed last night so distressed by those horrible descriptions of slowly and kindly teaching a child about sex. Sounds just like what pedophiles refer to as grooming. Also, I enjoy swimming with and playing games with my kids, but I have NO desire to have sex with them! The whole discussion is ridiculous and revolting.
Lastly, maybe counseling could help CWIA. I suspect many pedophiles were abused themselves as kids. The mind has many coping mechanisms to deal with trauma, but you don't get to pick your coping mechanism, and usually aren't even aware of it. Denial is one, Intellectualization, and also Identifying with the Abuser. Because if you are as strong as the abuser, then no one can ever hurt you again. My own story is that I am a woman and was molested by my great uncle when I was 11 or 12. Now as an adult woman I unfortunately often have fantasies about similar situations. In the fantasy I am neither the girl nor the man, but what gets me aroused is the thoughts and feelings of the male abuser. I am, in truth, identifying with the abuser. Somehow my developing sexuality at that age got all entangled with the brain's identifying with the abuser defense mechanism. I feel so lucky that I am a woman, because I have absolutely no desire to act on the fantasies. Not even just that I wouldn't, but that I truly have none of these desires in real life. I'm afraid that if I were a male I might not be so lucky.
I of course don't mean to suggest my single experience generalizes to all, but it makes me suspect similar things may have happened to others. And in some circumstances, did lead to feelings of pedophilia in the abused child himself, once grown to adulthood.
Also, my advice to CWIA is to not let yourself ever be alone with any child or children. If you have close friends/family with children and don't want to shut them out of your life all together, then enlist them to help you. Maybe you don't want to state the whole truth, but you could say something like, "I enjoy seeing you and your children, but there's something I need you to help me with. I was molested as a kid (maybe it's a lie, maybe not) and now I'm afraid that my own instincts about what's appropriate behavior between an adult and child may have gotten messed up. As a safeguard I have always made sure that I am never alone with a child, and I would like you to help make sure I am never alone with your children."
More...
TRIGGER ALERT:
Thanks to all of you who responded so well to anklyosaur. I went to bed last night so distressed by those horrible descriptions of slowly and kindly teaching a child about sex. Sounds just like what pedophiles refer to as grooming. Also, I enjoy swimming with and playing games with my kids, but I have NO desire to have sex with them! The whole discussion is ridiculous and revolting.
Lastly, maybe counseling could help CWIA. I suspect many pedophiles were abused themselves as kids. The mind has many coping mechanisms to deal with trauma, but you don't get to pick your coping mechanism, and usually aren't even aware of it. Denial is one, Intellectualization, and also Identifying with the Abuser. Because if you are as strong as the abuser, then no one can ever hurt you again. My own story is that I am a woman and was molested by my great uncle when I was 11 or 12. Now as an adult woman I unfortunately often have fantasies about similar situations. In the fantasy I am neither the girl nor the man, but what gets me aroused is the thoughts and feelings of the male abuser. I am, in truth, identifying with the abuser. Somehow my developing sexuality at that age got all entangled with the brain's identifying with the abuser defense mechanism. I feel so lucky that I am a woman, because I have absolutely no desire to act on the fantasies. Not even just that I wouldn't, but that I truly have none of these desires in real life. I'm afraid that if I were a male I might not be so lucky.
I of course don't mean to suggest my single experience generalizes to all, but it makes me suspect similar things may have happened to others. And in some circumstances, did lead to feelings of pedophilia in the abused child himself, once grown to adulthood.
Also, my advice to CWIA is to not let yourself ever be alone with any child or children. If you have close friends/family with children and don't want to shut them out of your life all together, then enlist them to help you. Maybe you don't want to state the whole truth, but you could say something like, "I enjoy seeing you and your children, but there's something I need you to help me with. I was molested as a kid (maybe it's a lie, maybe not) and now I'm afraid that my own instincts about what's appropriate behavior between an adult and child may have gotten messed up. As a safeguard I have always made sure that I am never alone with a child, and I would like you to help make sure I am never alone with your children."
211
@46 EricaP I'm a fan of yours, but you are wrong - fake porn is legal - google the US Supreme Court case "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition", from April 16 2002 - the Supreme Court struck down a 1996 law which tried to prohibit the "virtual" porn you are referring to.
212
@211, sadly, I think case law has moved beyond Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Be careful what you store on your hard drives, people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_statu…
In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003 by then president George W. Bush. The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males." ...
On December 18, 2008 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction....the petition for his case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court was denied on January 11, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_statu…
In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003 by then president George W. Bush. The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males." ...
On December 18, 2008 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction....the petition for his case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court was denied on January 11, 2010.
213
I hope CWIA is reading all these responses. It sounds like #4 had some encouraging stuff to say; there's someone who was in a LTR w/ a GSP & obviously doesn't think they're a broken person, or irredeemable. & CWIA, someone who wrote Dan w/ the same issue just wrote to him again to thank him for his advice. Said guy is in a relationship w/ a caring partner.
I don't know if I'd second the advice of telling people why you don't want to be around their kids, or elaborating in any way. Just say you don't. Let them think you're that cranky guy who hates kids. You don't need to be further ostracized.
Definitely pre-screen a therapist thoroughly before going in to see them. & don't get discouraged if you don't click w/ the first one your encounter. That's true of people seeking help for problems way less complicated than yours.
Self-hate will only hold you down & help you justify not moving on. Love yourself enough to learn to redirect your desires as much as possible, & don't think it's impossible.
I don't know if I'd second the advice of telling people why you don't want to be around their kids, or elaborating in any way. Just say you don't. Let them think you're that cranky guy who hates kids. You don't need to be further ostracized.
Definitely pre-screen a therapist thoroughly before going in to see them. & don't get discouraged if you don't click w/ the first one your encounter. That's true of people seeking help for problems way less complicated than yours.
Self-hate will only hold you down & help you justify not moving on. Love yourself enough to learn to redirect your desires as much as possible, & don't think it's impossible.
214
@212 EricaP you still don't understand. The 1996 law tried to categorically ban "virtual" porn. In Ashcrot v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court ruled that "virtual" porn does have First Amendment protection. But there has long been a narrow exception to First Amendment protection which is known as "obscenity". In 1920, for example, the novel "Ulysses" by James Joyce was censored in USA as "obscenity" - this is a work consisting only of text, no pictures, and Joyce is today recognized as a major figure in literature. The Whorley situation is the same situation Joyce was in - the law of obscenity was used. Something that is legally obscene in one jurisdiction may not be legally obscene in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and also over time - "Ulysses" is no longer considered obscene and can be found in most public libraries. Today, obscenity prosecutions are extremely rare. Since 1973, the legal test for obscenity has been the Miller test (the PROTECT act simply reiterates the Miller test) - the work has to fail each of these 3 tests (as determined by a jury): (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. A jury could well find that a given work of "virtual" porn does have some degree of serious artistic value.
215
@214, if you want to hang your freedom and your ability to stay off sex-offender lists on the possibility that a jury will see serious artistic value in a particular cartoon blowjob, be my guest.
You are right to correct my over-broad statement @46 that fake porn is "just as illegal" as porn made with real children. Clearly the feds find real porn worse. And copies of Romeo and Juliet seem to be safe.
But I do not think it is reasonable to tell people, as a blanket statement, that "fake porn is legal." How about this: "fake porn is legal unless a jury finds it's obscene."
You are right to correct my over-broad statement @46 that fake porn is "just as illegal" as porn made with real children. Clearly the feds find real porn worse. And copies of Romeo and Juliet seem to be safe.
But I do not think it is reasonable to tell people, as a blanket statement, that "fake porn is legal." How about this: "fake porn is legal unless a jury finds it's obscene."
216
@191 sissoucat: I am deeply sorry to hear about what you have experienced! Nobody should have to go through that. I hope everything works out for the better for you, and that you can find peace. You're in my thoughts and prayers.
217
@215 EricaP, the 1969 Supreme Court case Stanley v. Georgia (394 U.S. 557) affirms that we all have the constitutional right to possess even obscene material in the privacy of our homes. So it is entirely legal to possess fake porn at home - even if a jury might find it to be obscene, it's still completely legal.
In the Whorley case (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circui…), the 4th Circuit acknowledged the legality of possessing obscenity at home. But in a narrow 2-1 decision, the 4th Circuit argued that delivering the porn to Whorley's via the Internet was still illegal if Whorley knew it was obscene. In general, no material is obscene unless and until a jury formally finds it to be obscene. But Whorley was then on probation for previous violations involving non-virtual child porn in 1999 (and a condition of his probation was that he could not possess any type of porn). Whorley already had a long record of previous probation violations. Whorley was downloading the porn not at home, but rather in full public view on public Internet terminals provided by the local Unemployment Office. And the trial judge in his case had been the chair of the Meese anti-porn commission, notorious for its right-wing extremism. The trial judge threw the book at Whorley, giving him 20 years. The dissenting 4th Circuit judge argued that in view of the Ashcroft case, all of Whorley's virtual porn was actually legal. The dissenting judge also argued that Whorley's text emails were legal free speech protected by the Ashcroft ruling. Although Whorley appealed to the Supreme Court, his case was not taken. Supreme Court review generally requires a "circuit split" - a situation in which appellate courts disagree - and because obscenity cases are so rare, there aren't any other appellate court rulings yet.
More...
In the Whorley case (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circui…), the 4th Circuit acknowledged the legality of possessing obscenity at home. But in a narrow 2-1 decision, the 4th Circuit argued that delivering the porn to Whorley's via the Internet was still illegal if Whorley knew it was obscene. In general, no material is obscene unless and until a jury formally finds it to be obscene. But Whorley was then on probation for previous violations involving non-virtual child porn in 1999 (and a condition of his probation was that he could not possess any type of porn). Whorley already had a long record of previous probation violations. Whorley was downloading the porn not at home, but rather in full public view on public Internet terminals provided by the local Unemployment Office. And the trial judge in his case had been the chair of the Meese anti-porn commission, notorious for its right-wing extremism. The trial judge threw the book at Whorley, giving him 20 years. The dissenting 4th Circuit judge argued that in view of the Ashcroft case, all of Whorley's virtual porn was actually legal. The dissenting judge also argued that Whorley's text emails were legal free speech protected by the Ashcroft ruling. Although Whorley appealed to the Supreme Court, his case was not taken. Supreme Court review generally requires a "circuit split" - a situation in which appellate courts disagree - and because obscenity cases are so rare, there aren't any other appellate court rulings yet.
219
@217
What's your point? That if you get caught you have a good case in court? Good luck with living your life once you've been outed by the cops. Jail is the least of your worries. The overall climate in the US is to hound anyone connected with pedophilia to commit suicide. You won't find a job, you won't be permitted to live in huge swaths of the country, and you will be met with open hostility anywhere you go.
What's your point? That if you get caught you have a good case in court? Good luck with living your life once you've been outed by the cops. Jail is the least of your worries. The overall climate in the US is to hound anyone connected with pedophilia to commit suicide. You won't find a job, you won't be permitted to live in huge swaths of the country, and you will be met with open hostility anywhere you go.
220
@ 208 -
something, please step back for a moment and consider what you have written. You are arguing that historical precedence is indicative of morality. There is a historical precedence for a wide variety of human behaviors including but not limited to genocide, torture, genital mutilation, mass murder, and medical experimentation on conscious individuals who have received no pain management. Surely you do not really believe that an action having occurred before is justification for individuals preforming that action again.
Now, to address the rest of your argument: there have in fact been countless studies on the development of judgement in children and adolescents. The Journal of Child Neurology is a good starting point if you are interested in learning about the subject. Will you conceded that children prior to the onset of puberty are indeed children, bearing in mind that a child is incapable of abstract reasoning before the age of twelve? If so, it should interest you to learn that neurologists have found that a child prior to adolescence has better judgement than a child during adolescence. This is particularly true of early adolescence. The brain is being bathed in hormones and is undergoing a process referred to as "synaptic pruning." The greatest gap in judgement exists between early adolescence (this is the stage during which children undergo puberty) and middle adolescence (children have completed puberty at this stage - this usually occurs between 14 and 18 years of age).
However, that is not germane to the point that I initially made: children are not autonomous. Children cannot act independently and do not have the freedom to do so. They are reliant upon adults. If a child does not pay for his or her basic needs independently, a child is not autonomous. In other words, as long as a child is reliant upon his or her parents or caregivers for his or her basic needs (food and shelter) he or she is unable to act in a way that is completely independent of their wishes. As such, the child's consent is coerced.
@ 209 -
Crinoline, I did focus on penetrative sex because non-penetrative sex is not physically harmful. Non-penetrative sex will not cause tearing or internal bleeding or damage to internal organs. However, the very first thing I addressed was the moral implications of sex with a child. Those implications are most certainly not limited to penetrative sex. Albeit not rape, non-penetrative sex without consent is certainly sexual assault.
More...
something, please step back for a moment and consider what you have written. You are arguing that historical precedence is indicative of morality. There is a historical precedence for a wide variety of human behaviors including but not limited to genocide, torture, genital mutilation, mass murder, and medical experimentation on conscious individuals who have received no pain management. Surely you do not really believe that an action having occurred before is justification for individuals preforming that action again.
Now, to address the rest of your argument: there have in fact been countless studies on the development of judgement in children and adolescents. The Journal of Child Neurology is a good starting point if you are interested in learning about the subject. Will you conceded that children prior to the onset of puberty are indeed children, bearing in mind that a child is incapable of abstract reasoning before the age of twelve? If so, it should interest you to learn that neurologists have found that a child prior to adolescence has better judgement than a child during adolescence. This is particularly true of early adolescence. The brain is being bathed in hormones and is undergoing a process referred to as "synaptic pruning." The greatest gap in judgement exists between early adolescence (this is the stage during which children undergo puberty) and middle adolescence (children have completed puberty at this stage - this usually occurs between 14 and 18 years of age).
However, that is not germane to the point that I initially made: children are not autonomous. Children cannot act independently and do not have the freedom to do so. They are reliant upon adults. If a child does not pay for his or her basic needs independently, a child is not autonomous. In other words, as long as a child is reliant upon his or her parents or caregivers for his or her basic needs (food and shelter) he or she is unable to act in a way that is completely independent of their wishes. As such, the child's consent is coerced.
@ 209 -
Crinoline, I did focus on penetrative sex because non-penetrative sex is not physically harmful. Non-penetrative sex will not cause tearing or internal bleeding or damage to internal organs. However, the very first thing I addressed was the moral implications of sex with a child. Those implications are most certainly not limited to penetrative sex. Albeit not rape, non-penetrative sex without consent is certainly sexual assault.
221
@ 209 - Sorry for the double post, but I didn't give you a full answer and I apologize for that.
Neither child is autonomous so neither child is giving consent. However, the first child is not giving consent to receiving basic care while the second child is not giving consent to foreplay. I would argue that it is not immoral to give basic care but that it is immoral to involve a non-consenting individual in foreplay (for the very reasons you mentioned - the child would possibly notice and feel violated.)
However, policing the thoughts of others is also incorrect. I personally believe that the best way to balance the rights of the pedophile to free thought with the rights of the child to feel safe is an abstracted interpretation of John B. Finch's claim that "your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.” In other words, if the pedophile thinks about a child and no children are at all affected, that is acceptable. If, however, his attraction is felt by a child he is violating that child and is acting outside of the scope of what is moral. (And no, I don't think it matters in the slightest if he believes a child won't notice and he is wrong. In that case, his actions are still immoral and his violation of the child is still indefensible.)
Neither child is autonomous so neither child is giving consent. However, the first child is not giving consent to receiving basic care while the second child is not giving consent to foreplay. I would argue that it is not immoral to give basic care but that it is immoral to involve a non-consenting individual in foreplay (for the very reasons you mentioned - the child would possibly notice and feel violated.)
However, policing the thoughts of others is also incorrect. I personally believe that the best way to balance the rights of the pedophile to free thought with the rights of the child to feel safe is an abstracted interpretation of John B. Finch's claim that "your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.” In other words, if the pedophile thinks about a child and no children are at all affected, that is acceptable. If, however, his attraction is felt by a child he is violating that child and is acting outside of the scope of what is moral. (And no, I don't think it matters in the slightest if he believes a child won't notice and he is wrong. In that case, his actions are still immoral and his violation of the child is still indefensible.)
222
@221 "I don't think it matters in the slightest if he believes a child won't notice and he is wrong."
Indeed. If I believe you will keep your balance when I jokingly shove you in the street, and instead you fall and get run over, my (false) belief doesn't make my action any less criminal.
Indeed. If I believe you will keep your balance when I jokingly shove you in the street, and instead you fall and get run over, my (false) belief doesn't make my action any less criminal.
224
@223 In Crinoline's example, the girl feels a bad vibe from the pedophile: "While she may not be able to articulate why she feels so icky, something is horrible about that situation, and she's likely to feel it in a variety of ways for years to come."
So (I think) MiscKitty's point is that this is a case where the child has been affected, and has been violated.
But insofar as many guys apparently walk around all day imagining women naked, but at least some of them manage to keep us unaware of that vibe, I think it's possible for a pedophile to have bad thoughts without anyone knowing. And I wouldn't support a government program to try to find out who had those thoughts by hooking people up to plethysmographs.
So (I think) MiscKitty's point is that this is a case where the child has been affected, and has been violated.
But insofar as many guys apparently walk around all day imagining women naked, but at least some of them manage to keep us unaware of that vibe, I think it's possible for a pedophile to have bad thoughts without anyone knowing. And I wouldn't support a government program to try to find out who had those thoughts by hooking people up to plethysmographs.
226
@219 Mr. J, my main point is that the truth should be correctly understood here in the esteemed Savage Love forum. People unfamiliar with the law can unknowingly make really big mistakes, like saying fake porn is illegal in USA, or for another hypothetical example saying that consensual adult incest is illegal in New Jersey (that's totally false - as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, in New Jersey family members can legally have unlimited amounts of sex with each other, regardless of how closely related they might be). And for a third example, Mr. J, your claim that "you won't be permitted to live in huge swaths of the country" is also untrue - only registered sex offenders are subject to residency restrictions, and no one can be ordered to register as a sex offender for doing things that are perfectly legal.
227
@226 - it's not "perfectly legal." You may end up eventually clearing your name, after years of appeals. But maybe that will depend on whether you're in California or Tennessee, since community standards play a role.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-24/justi…
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06…
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-24/justi…
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06…
228
@226
I see. We can all take comfort that innocent people don't get convicted and put on lists that they can't get off. The list isn't the only thing that will keep you from living in certain places. Get your face in the paper and just try to live near an elementary school. There are people with pitchforks and torches where I live who won't permit it. But don't worry! The law is on your side.
@227 EricaP
Change that to: ..."clear" your name...
This is one area where your good name is never coming back.
I see. We can all take comfort that innocent people don't get convicted and put on lists that they can't get off. The list isn't the only thing that will keep you from living in certain places. Get your face in the paper and just try to live near an elementary school. There are people with pitchforks and torches where I live who won't permit it. But don't worry! The law is on your side.
@227 EricaP
Change that to: ..."clear" your name...
This is one area where your good name is never coming back.
229
This question is a day late and a dollar short, but what the hell.
EricaP:
Do you ever find your role as a sub conflicting with your role as a mom, when it comes to making decisions (or deferring on decisions) that affect your children?
PS I'm not judging, though my question might sound stupid. I've just never met D/s parents before and I'm curious about how you two handle parenting.
EricaP:
Do you ever find your role as a sub conflicting with your role as a mom, when it comes to making decisions (or deferring on decisions) that affect your children?
PS I'm not judging, though my question might sound stupid. I've just never met D/s parents before and I'm curious about how you two handle parenting.
230
And the instant after I posted, I saw your comment @82, answering my question already.
Your comments about D/s are really insightful. Thanks a million for sharing, EricaP.
Your comments about D/s are really insightful. Thanks a million for sharing, EricaP.
231
208, Something-- No one here is talking about how harmful it is for an adult to have sex with a post-puberty 18 year old, or even a post-puberty 15 year old. That can be problematic, but it is not the subject. We're talking about pedophilia, sex with pre-puberty children.
Let me take your questions or comments one by one. I do not believe that "surely there are young boys of age 12 who are far more capable of having emotionally healthy sex than are millions of adults," but if there were, those 12 year olds would be more emotionally healthy and better off if they waited until they were older. (That is, sex with a partner. Masturbating alone at age 12 sounds fine.)
"Is what CWIA wants to do intrinsically immoral?" Actually, what CWIA wants to do is get therapy, become happier, and not hurt anyone, but I know that's not what you meant. You're asking if his having sex with a pre-puberty boy is immoral, and it is. Period.
"Can anyone cite a study showing that anyone below 18 will be harmed by fucking?" Of course not. Many teenagers have sex with each other and benefit from the experience. You can go off on other tangents concerning post-puberty teenagers having sex with adults 20 years older and get into Dan's campsite rule or issues of power and coercion, but let's get back to the point. A study showing that a pre-puberty child having sex with an adult is definitely harmful. It would be hard to find a study as you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of one child who was not harmed by the experience.
"Or that anyone over 18 year old won't be." You can find many examples of people who have been harmed by sexual experiences when they were over age 18, but that's irrelevant.
"Or indeed that a horny 12 year old is better off fucking another horny 12 year old than someone twice his age." With two 12 year olds, you've removed some of the power differential, but I still think it unlikely that these 2 magically emotionally mature children would find each other at that age and enter into this consensual relationship. When these two do find each other and decide to become your control group, let us all know.
"Is it possible to do lasting harm to a young boy by having sex with him ... Is it always going to happen to someone under 18?" YES. Change 18 to pre-puberty 13, and the answer is yes. Not unlikely, yes. The distinction has nothing to do with ethical or legal. It is legal in many countries for adult men to marry 10 year old girls. They don't grow up saying the experience was terrific and that they're glad their culture allowed it because they never wanted to wait until they were grown anyway.
Really, I'm surprised no one jumped down your throat for that post sooner. We've all been so busy with ankylosaur that perhaps we forgot.
More...
Let me take your questions or comments one by one. I do not believe that "surely there are young boys of age 12 who are far more capable of having emotionally healthy sex than are millions of adults," but if there were, those 12 year olds would be more emotionally healthy and better off if they waited until they were older. (That is, sex with a partner. Masturbating alone at age 12 sounds fine.)
"Is what CWIA wants to do intrinsically immoral?" Actually, what CWIA wants to do is get therapy, become happier, and not hurt anyone, but I know that's not what you meant. You're asking if his having sex with a pre-puberty boy is immoral, and it is. Period.
"Can anyone cite a study showing that anyone below 18 will be harmed by fucking?" Of course not. Many teenagers have sex with each other and benefit from the experience. You can go off on other tangents concerning post-puberty teenagers having sex with adults 20 years older and get into Dan's campsite rule or issues of power and coercion, but let's get back to the point. A study showing that a pre-puberty child having sex with an adult is definitely harmful. It would be hard to find a study as you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of one child who was not harmed by the experience.
"Or that anyone over 18 year old won't be." You can find many examples of people who have been harmed by sexual experiences when they were over age 18, but that's irrelevant.
"Or indeed that a horny 12 year old is better off fucking another horny 12 year old than someone twice his age." With two 12 year olds, you've removed some of the power differential, but I still think it unlikely that these 2 magically emotionally mature children would find each other at that age and enter into this consensual relationship. When these two do find each other and decide to become your control group, let us all know.
"Is it possible to do lasting harm to a young boy by having sex with him ... Is it always going to happen to someone under 18?" YES. Change 18 to pre-puberty 13, and the answer is yes. Not unlikely, yes. The distinction has nothing to do with ethical or legal. It is legal in many countries for adult men to marry 10 year old girls. They don't grow up saying the experience was terrific and that they're glad their culture allowed it because they never wanted to wait until they were grown anyway.
Really, I'm surprised no one jumped down your throat for that post sooner. We've all been so busy with ankylosaur that perhaps we forgot.
232
I take issue with the implication that sexual assault is an act of attraction or lust.
I don't believe child molesters are ordinary (messed up but good hearted) people who simply can't stop fantasizing about having sex with children.
While I solute CWIA for their self awareness and dedication to doing the right thing, I find the perspective taken here to be chilling and skewed. Like when people think domestic violence perps are just big teddy bears without anger management skills, rather than folks who are systematically targeting their partner and/or children with threatening and controlling behavior so as to control the situation. Of course not ALL perps are sociopaths. If someone cannot or is not willing to feel empathy, they are severed from humanity and a danger to our communities.
I don't believe child molesters are ordinary (messed up but good hearted) people who simply can't stop fantasizing about having sex with children.
While I solute CWIA for their self awareness and dedication to doing the right thing, I find the perspective taken here to be chilling and skewed. Like when people think domestic violence perps are just big teddy bears without anger management skills, rather than folks who are systematically targeting their partner and/or children with threatening and controlling behavior so as to control the situation. Of course not ALL perps are sociopaths. If someone cannot or is not willing to feel empathy, they are severed from humanity and a danger to our communities.
233
CWIA is asking two questions. One is about how to legally protect himself when discussing his pedophilia. The other is about how to obtain some type of low cost therapeutic assistance. IMO unless he, and other Gold Star Pedophiles, are either Canadian citizens or foreigners who have obtained legal permanent residency in Canada, Cantor is not the right person to ask for advice. I think that Dan, with the best of intentions, made a serious mistake on this one.
Over the past few years I have gotten to know both the legal and medical systems of Canada very well. They are very, very different from the U.S. Relying on advice from Cantor, an American born, but Candian trained/academically affiliated PhD, could land CWIA in a U.S. prison even if he still has his Gold Star.
Talk to a U.S. lawyer, bound by client confidentialty, to learn about your rights. (No law students.) Make a sliding scale or other cheap MEDICATION APPOINTMENT with a U.S. M.D. who can write prescriptions. There are many relatively inexpensive generic libido killing meds like anti-depressants, blood pressure meds, etc. that you can get from an internist or family practice doc without having to divulge your pedophilia.
Then see if you can find a licensed psychotherapist of some sort to help you talk about your problems. Try a teaching hospital if there is a large, secular one in your area. (They could help with the med appts. too.) Try the link Dan listed. Maybe an online support group could also help, but remember that you never really know who an anonymous poster on a forum is.
I have worked with convicted sex offenders, CWIA. You will need as much help as you can get to maintain your Gold Star status over the course of a lifetime, but you have to get it and you deserve to get it. Keep trying until you find it.
For those commenters who can't/choose not to understand that pedophilia is not just another harmless kink and that it injures victims for life, check out the CSA section at pandys.org aka Pandora's Aquarium. Let their CSA survivors tell you about it. Also, go fuck yourselves with Santorum's dick.
More...
Over the past few years I have gotten to know both the legal and medical systems of Canada very well. They are very, very different from the U.S. Relying on advice from Cantor, an American born, but Candian trained/academically affiliated PhD, could land CWIA in a U.S. prison even if he still has his Gold Star.
Talk to a U.S. lawyer, bound by client confidentialty, to learn about your rights. (No law students.) Make a sliding scale or other cheap MEDICATION APPOINTMENT with a U.S. M.D. who can write prescriptions. There are many relatively inexpensive generic libido killing meds like anti-depressants, blood pressure meds, etc. that you can get from an internist or family practice doc without having to divulge your pedophilia.
Then see if you can find a licensed psychotherapist of some sort to help you talk about your problems. Try a teaching hospital if there is a large, secular one in your area. (They could help with the med appts. too.) Try the link Dan listed. Maybe an online support group could also help, but remember that you never really know who an anonymous poster on a forum is.
I have worked with convicted sex offenders, CWIA. You will need as much help as you can get to maintain your Gold Star status over the course of a lifetime, but you have to get it and you deserve to get it. Keep trying until you find it.
For those commenters who can't/choose not to understand that pedophilia is not just another harmless kink and that it injures victims for life, check out the CSA section at pandys.org aka Pandora's Aquarium. Let their CSA survivors tell you about it. Also, go fuck yourselves with Santorum's dick.
234
@27: There is a subtle point that I'd like to emphasize here. Children, despite their age, are self-aware human beings. They are HUMAN, no less so than their elder peers, lacking no more than experience and knowledge (and size, perhaps).
Children are capable of consent, and sometimes even informed consent - to deny them that judgment on account of age is dehumanizing. However, by their nature, child-adult interactions deprive children of that faculty, because the divide in strength and experience (of any type) between the two is so great that the child is deprived of any real choice. They can be manipulated without any conscious effort on the part of the adult, simply because they lack the mental grounding to assert themselves. It is *specifically* in these situations that sexual activity becomes non-consensual for the child. Not because of the act itself, but because of the parties involved.
Children are capable of consent, and sometimes even informed consent - to deny them that judgment on account of age is dehumanizing. However, by their nature, child-adult interactions deprive children of that faculty, because the divide in strength and experience (of any type) between the two is so great that the child is deprived of any real choice. They can be manipulated without any conscious effort on the part of the adult, simply because they lack the mental grounding to assert themselves. It is *specifically* in these situations that sexual activity becomes non-consensual for the child. Not because of the act itself, but because of the parties involved.
235
@227 EricaP - The two cases you are linking to are cases in which the image of a real person's head is Photoshopped onto the image of a nude body. That isn't 100% virtual - the image of the head is real. The Supreme Court is only saying that 100% virtual images have First Amendment protection. Mix any real images into it and you lose the First Amendment protection. In the California case you cited, the legal win happened under state law because the facts of the situation didn't match up with what California's state law requires for a conviction.
236
@232, who wrote: And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
But doesn't that apply to those who don't feel empathy for people in CWIA's position as well?
Assuming that something is automatically true for all cases is usually wrong for at least some of them. Not all domestic violence offenders are "systematically targeting their partner and/or children with threatening and controlling behavior so as to control the situation;" and even those who are are not robots. Humans are not that simple.
But doesn't that apply to those who don't feel empathy for people in CWIA's position as well?
Assuming that something is automatically true for all cases is usually wrong for at least some of them. Not all domestic violence offenders are "systematically targeting their partner and/or children with threatening and controlling behavior so as to control the situation;" and even those who are are not robots. Humans are not that simple.
237
@crinoline, nocutename, and others, re: sex with children.
Trigger warnings!
My dear friends, I do understand that the topic is upsetting: any look at your comments makes it clear that it's a question that brings a lot of emotional responses.
Furthermore, among the readers here, there are many who had horrible experiences in their childhood (sissoucat -- what happened to you was really horrible, much more than what happened to me; let me hope you will be able to heal a little every day.). It is unfair to them, as Mr Ven pointed out, to discuss this topic in detail.
Which is why this is going to be my last post anywhere here in this site about it.
I won't go into details. I will just mention one thing: there are cultures in which sex between adults and children occurs and does not lead to harm. (I've mentioned the Ancient Greek custom of pederastia, in which pre-pubescent boys became lovers of older men as part of their education. I've mentioned cultures in which children watching, or even being in bed [well, hammock] together with adults having sex is not uncommon.)
In light of that,
Would you consider, at least for a moment, that a strong, perhaps crucial, part of the horror and repugnance you feel at the idea might be the result of the culture you were born in, not really a result of something physical, or of some inherently spritual, magic thing about sex that simply inherently harms children?
Would you consider, at least for a moment, the idea that the horrible damage done to so many children was not the mere idea of sex per se, or exposure to it, but how it was done, plus the stigma on it? That the problem was not that they had sex with adults, but with abusers who didn't care about the child, his/her boundaries, his/her sanity, his/her feelings? (Again, sissoucat: your father did something repugnant. I really can't fathom what could possibly have been going through his mind.)
Would you consider for a moment that the equation sex with children = evil, no matter what the circumstances are, may be an oversimplification (even if only because, in life, there are hardly any simple things that are always true, or always false?) That there might be cases out there (how many? I don't know) in which this didn't lead to any harm, and that the reason we don't hear about it might be similar to the reason people usually don't hear about successful non-monogamy -- there is no reason for people to come out, there is a horrible stigma against the idea, and probably no one would believe them?
Would you consider, at least for a moment, that the reason why Crinoline finds it so hard to express in words exactly why it is that the little girl being bathed by a pedophile father (who doesn't touch or harm her physically in any way, but masturbates afterwards) feels is 'icky', and why it is that she might be harmed forever -- that the reason for this fealing could be cultural, how the situation is construed, what it is felt to mean, not anything in the reality of the situation itself? (And yes, 5-year-olds are very much cultural beings. Notice that, in America, they speak English -- something they were not born with.) That perhaps in another culture (one in which fathers wouldn't necessarily think it wrong to bathe their daughters, and feel that their wives ought to do it), and in some cases even in our own, the little girl might actually feel nothing at all (other than children's usual little angry reaction at the idea that they have to bathe, rather than go on playing with their toys)?
Look at your comments, and look at the rational argument vs. emotional reaction ratio. Don't you see a certain similarity between that, and those comments written by conservative right-wing people about how horrible the gay sex is? How anal sex debases you, destroys your belief in god, leads to eternal damnation? Who claim gays want to 'stick their penises into excrements and wiggle them around', as someone said not so long ago? Have you read what Eastern European anti-gay protesters said? Do you think their horror is any less deeply felt than yours, that their outrage is felt any less as a natural reaction to an abomination, to something that harms people, to something that is obviously, clearly evil?
And I'm not belittling emotions. Again, many of you (and I, too) were violated by abusers as children; how can people with this background even consider this issue without horrible flashbacks, strong emotional responses, no, no, NO!
But then again, there are people who as children were abused by gays (I'm one such person); maybe some of them were scarred in such a way as to have the same instinctive repugnance to gays and the very idea of homosexuality. They may also feel deep revulsion and horror at the idea of gays, and what they do! No, no, NO!
I know that emotional reactions are unavoidable to humans, and that as cultural creatures we find it hard to dissociate from culture-inspired emotions. In fact, if you've thus far in this comment, I am quite sure you are now very angry at me, perhaps repulsed, perhaps even re-evaluating any good impressions you might have had about me and deciding I'm just some deranged or broken individual, 'damaged goods' as they say, who is letting his own 'brokenness' shape his thoughts into horrible, repugnant patterns that are not meant to be. Perhaps I'm a deranged individual trying to justify child rape? With no concern and empathy for other people? Or at best a dellusional intellectual lost in fantasies of false equivalences who thinks he can justify anything as some sort of intellectual exercise, for his own selfish amusement?
If that is what you're feeling right now, then I ask: step aside for a moment and look at your feeling dispassionately (the way we're supposed to 'watch our feelings from the outside' in yoga meditation exercises), and ask yourselves whether the roots of this feeling are rational (i.e., am I really a bad person who is for some stupid intellectual reason trying to, or at least running the risk of, inflict(ing) harm on you) or not. And if not, what are these roots? Are they universal, or could they be culturally based?
Compare your feeling of repugnance to the aforementioned feeling of repugnance felt by fundamentalist Christians at the idea of homosexuality and at the specifics and mechanics of gay sex. Isn't there a certain similarity? (Doesn't that in fact even help you understand them better -- understand them as human beings who feel really, really bad in their hearts about something they were taught to construe as being really evil? Doesn't it help you understand better what they feel when they read advice written by Dan Savage -- how they think he is a deranged, dellusional, extremist individual wrong on so many levels they can't even begin to describe how?)
Well, that's pretty much it. Judge it as you will. Judge me as you will.
If you think what I just wrote or said will affect your opinions about me so that you'll no longer be able to engage rationally with me, without an emotional response to the opinions I've just espoused, when we're talking about other topics (the way nocutename once claimed she couldn't forget what EricaP had previously written), then please tell me now. I could, for example, not post here in this site any longer, and leave you all in peace, if you think this would be better. Please let me know.
More...
Trigger warnings!
My dear friends, I do understand that the topic is upsetting: any look at your comments makes it clear that it's a question that brings a lot of emotional responses.
Furthermore, among the readers here, there are many who had horrible experiences in their childhood (sissoucat -- what happened to you was really horrible, much more than what happened to me; let me hope you will be able to heal a little every day.). It is unfair to them, as Mr Ven pointed out, to discuss this topic in detail.
Which is why this is going to be my last post anywhere here in this site about it.
I won't go into details. I will just mention one thing: there are cultures in which sex between adults and children occurs and does not lead to harm. (I've mentioned the Ancient Greek custom of pederastia, in which pre-pubescent boys became lovers of older men as part of their education. I've mentioned cultures in which children watching, or even being in bed [well, hammock] together with adults having sex is not uncommon.)
In light of that,
Would you consider, at least for a moment, that a strong, perhaps crucial, part of the horror and repugnance you feel at the idea might be the result of the culture you were born in, not really a result of something physical, or of some inherently spritual, magic thing about sex that simply inherently harms children?
Would you consider, at least for a moment, the idea that the horrible damage done to so many children was not the mere idea of sex per se, or exposure to it, but how it was done, plus the stigma on it? That the problem was not that they had sex with adults, but with abusers who didn't care about the child, his/her boundaries, his/her sanity, his/her feelings? (Again, sissoucat: your father did something repugnant. I really can't fathom what could possibly have been going through his mind.)
Would you consider for a moment that the equation sex with children = evil, no matter what the circumstances are, may be an oversimplification (even if only because, in life, there are hardly any simple things that are always true, or always false?) That there might be cases out there (how many? I don't know) in which this didn't lead to any harm, and that the reason we don't hear about it might be similar to the reason people usually don't hear about successful non-monogamy -- there is no reason for people to come out, there is a horrible stigma against the idea, and probably no one would believe them?
Would you consider, at least for a moment, that the reason why Crinoline finds it so hard to express in words exactly why it is that the little girl being bathed by a pedophile father (who doesn't touch or harm her physically in any way, but masturbates afterwards) feels is 'icky', and why it is that she might be harmed forever -- that the reason for this fealing could be cultural, how the situation is construed, what it is felt to mean, not anything in the reality of the situation itself? (And yes, 5-year-olds are very much cultural beings. Notice that, in America, they speak English -- something they were not born with.) That perhaps in another culture (one in which fathers wouldn't necessarily think it wrong to bathe their daughters, and feel that their wives ought to do it), and in some cases even in our own, the little girl might actually feel nothing at all (other than children's usual little angry reaction at the idea that they have to bathe, rather than go on playing with their toys)?
Look at your comments, and look at the rational argument vs. emotional reaction ratio. Don't you see a certain similarity between that, and those comments written by conservative right-wing people about how horrible the gay sex is? How anal sex debases you, destroys your belief in god, leads to eternal damnation? Who claim gays want to 'stick their penises into excrements and wiggle them around', as someone said not so long ago? Have you read what Eastern European anti-gay protesters said? Do you think their horror is any less deeply felt than yours, that their outrage is felt any less as a natural reaction to an abomination, to something that harms people, to something that is obviously, clearly evil?
And I'm not belittling emotions. Again, many of you (and I, too) were violated by abusers as children; how can people with this background even consider this issue without horrible flashbacks, strong emotional responses, no, no, NO!
But then again, there are people who as children were abused by gays (I'm one such person); maybe some of them were scarred in such a way as to have the same instinctive repugnance to gays and the very idea of homosexuality. They may also feel deep revulsion and horror at the idea of gays, and what they do! No, no, NO!
I know that emotional reactions are unavoidable to humans, and that as cultural creatures we find it hard to dissociate from culture-inspired emotions. In fact, if you've thus far in this comment, I am quite sure you are now very angry at me, perhaps repulsed, perhaps even re-evaluating any good impressions you might have had about me and deciding I'm just some deranged or broken individual, 'damaged goods' as they say, who is letting his own 'brokenness' shape his thoughts into horrible, repugnant patterns that are not meant to be. Perhaps I'm a deranged individual trying to justify child rape? With no concern and empathy for other people? Or at best a dellusional intellectual lost in fantasies of false equivalences who thinks he can justify anything as some sort of intellectual exercise, for his own selfish amusement?
If that is what you're feeling right now, then I ask: step aside for a moment and look at your feeling dispassionately (the way we're supposed to 'watch our feelings from the outside' in yoga meditation exercises), and ask yourselves whether the roots of this feeling are rational (i.e., am I really a bad person who is for some stupid intellectual reason trying to, or at least running the risk of, inflict(ing) harm on you) or not. And if not, what are these roots? Are they universal, or could they be culturally based?
Compare your feeling of repugnance to the aforementioned feeling of repugnance felt by fundamentalist Christians at the idea of homosexuality and at the specifics and mechanics of gay sex. Isn't there a certain similarity? (Doesn't that in fact even help you understand them better -- understand them as human beings who feel really, really bad in their hearts about something they were taught to construe as being really evil? Doesn't it help you understand better what they feel when they read advice written by Dan Savage -- how they think he is a deranged, dellusional, extremist individual wrong on so many levels they can't even begin to describe how?)
Well, that's pretty much it. Judge it as you will. Judge me as you will.
If you think what I just wrote or said will affect your opinions about me so that you'll no longer be able to engage rationally with me, without an emotional response to the opinions I've just espoused, when we're talking about other topics (the way nocutename once claimed she couldn't forget what EricaP had previously written), then please tell me now. I could, for example, not post here in this site any longer, and leave you all in peace, if you think this would be better. Please let me know.
238
Ankylosaur, just give this a break. I don't think anyone wants you to leave the site. Just..let this go. There's some bit of empathy or connection that makes many/most of the readers here view sex differently than you do. They are *unable* to separate those emotions from the discussion.
All I can think, again, is that you need more help getting over what you went through as a child. You seem very removed, & in some stretches sound clinical & detached.
You don't sound like a bad person, but since (as has been explained both emotionally, by upset people, & calmly, by people trying to be sympathetic) the power differential between adult & child is too vast, the societal construct you are imagining does not exist, & furthermore, it's likely not possible to exist.
The intellectual point(s) you have been trying to make are acknowledged. But geez, to compare the aversion society at large has for pedophilia to how some conservatives see gay relationships - that was disheartening. Really..? *That* analogy, again?
I don't think you are broken, any more so than I think anyone else is broken. But it seems to me, allll the way here in Virginia (nowhere close to Seattle, alas) that you have questions raging in your mind that you need to answer.
The position of the world at large is not wrong, on this issue.
***
@ CWIA: to repeat, I hope you are reading all the unregistered comments. I dunno how accurate voids@ 233 is, but that sounds like stuff that should be thought about, to me.
All I can think, again, is that you need more help getting over what you went through as a child. You seem very removed, & in some stretches sound clinical & detached.
You don't sound like a bad person, but since (as has been explained both emotionally, by upset people, & calmly, by people trying to be sympathetic) the power differential between adult & child is too vast, the societal construct you are imagining does not exist, & furthermore, it's likely not possible to exist.
The intellectual point(s) you have been trying to make are acknowledged. But geez, to compare the aversion society at large has for pedophilia to how some conservatives see gay relationships - that was disheartening. Really..? *That* analogy, again?
I don't think you are broken, any more so than I think anyone else is broken. But it seems to me, allll the way here in Virginia (nowhere close to Seattle, alas) that you have questions raging in your mind that you need to answer.
The position of the world at large is not wrong, on this issue.
***
@ CWIA: to repeat, I hope you are reading all the unregistered comments. I dunno how accurate voids@ 233 is, but that sounds like stuff that should be thought about, to me.
239
Hey, ankylosaur, I'm the fucking unicorn--I lost my virginity at the age of 5, and didn't find it awful, or have nightmares, or develop trust issues. Actually, it was kind of exciting and fun. (I still bear a burden of shame that can't be easily articulated to other people, especially other survivors: the shame of NOT being angry or hurt. That might be why you don't see too many of us unicorns out and about; we kind of feel like admitting it wasn't that bad is a terrible thing to do, because for so many people it WAS THAT BAD, and we don't want to minimize somebody else's suffering. Also because other survivors get angry and accuse us of lying about being abused at all.)
Anyway, here's the thing: nobody can predict who gets to be the unicorn and who gets life-long PTSD and who will fall somewhere between. It isn't a matter of being well enough groomed. It doesn't seem to matter what your background is. And so long as it's a crapshoot--with loaded dice--as to whether harm will be suffered, it just isn't worth the risk.
Anyway, here's the thing: nobody can predict who gets to be the unicorn and who gets life-long PTSD and who will fall somewhere between. It isn't a matter of being well enough groomed. It doesn't seem to matter what your background is. And so long as it's a crapshoot--with loaded dice--as to whether harm will be suffered, it just isn't worth the risk.
240
@237 Anklyosaur, stick around! No one person has the whole truth... through debate, we all contribute our own knowledge to the discussion for the greater good of all. Your contributions have been very thoughtful and productive in this debate.
242
237 Ankylosaur-- I don't hate you. I don't judge you (maybe a little). I don't want you to leave the site. I do think you're wrong for the reasons stated above. I'm not a quivering mass of emotional reactionism so cowed by my cultural indoctrination that I can't think straight. I am rational. I have reviewed the evidence. I have come to vastly different conclusions from yours, and I resent the implication that if I only thought about it more and thought about it more dispassionately I'd agree with you.
243
@239(unicorn), quite interesting. Would you want to share the details? You could remain an unregistered commenter for ever higher anonimity.
I wished more people like you would come out and admit they had sex as children without harm -- not to belittle those who were harmed (I still cannot understand what was going on in sissoucat's father's head above; he must have been horribly delusional).
I'm afraid that you're probably not going to be believed if you say you weren't harmed. Look at Ms Hopkin's comment above -- and she is really being nice to me. It's not simply that you have the burden of NOT having been harmed, when others have: it's that your reaction is probably going to be pathologized somehow. "It can't be true that you were not harmed; you must have developed some kind of protective mechanism to hide the horrible truth from yourself!"
So if you come out, you will suffer. That's true. But unfortunately that's what needs to happen, so that people will gain some more perspective on the problem and not jump to conclusions.
I wished more people like you would come out and admit they had sex as children without harm -- not to belittle those who were harmed (I still cannot understand what was going on in sissoucat's father's head above; he must have been horribly delusional).
I'm afraid that you're probably not going to be believed if you say you weren't harmed. Look at Ms Hopkin's comment above -- and she is really being nice to me. It's not simply that you have the burden of NOT having been harmed, when others have: it's that your reaction is probably going to be pathologized somehow. "It can't be true that you were not harmed; you must have developed some kind of protective mechanism to hide the horrible truth from yourself!"
So if you come out, you will suffer. That's true. But unfortunately that's what needs to happen, so that people will gain some more perspective on the problem and not jump to conclusions.
244
@239, what anklyosaur seems to be saying is that it is exactly society's viewpoint (is this taboo or is this a custom) that mainly decides whether harm will be suffered. In the societies where this is just a customary thing, it's the person who didn't accept it who would be the unicorn. Effective large-scale harm reduction would therefore begin with the removal of the psychologically harmful taboo that these other cultures have shown to be unnecessary.
245
243-- A little application of Occam's razor here. Perhaps the reason more people like unicorn don't come out and admit they had sex as children without harm is because there is a vanishing small number of them.
But let's say, in a thought experiment, that we get this group of I'm-OK early sexual initiates together long enough to collect some data. How many are going to check the box that says "Not only am I O.K., I feel lucky. I'm better for the experience. I'm glad it was done this way and don't think it would have been better or equal if I'd waited until I was through puberty and having consensual sex outside a power differential"?
I'm all ears. What's the advantage that would make the risk of PTSD worth it?
But let's say, in a thought experiment, that we get this group of I'm-OK early sexual initiates together long enough to collect some data. How many are going to check the box that says "Not only am I O.K., I feel lucky. I'm better for the experience. I'm glad it was done this way and don't think it would have been better or equal if I'd waited until I was through puberty and having consensual sex outside a power differential"?
I'm all ears. What's the advantage that would make the risk of PTSD worth it?
246
@242, Crinoline, you are actually one of the least emotional, indeed. You aren't thorwing words around like "repugnant" or "horrible" at the very idea, and I give you credit for that. Also, the most word-throwing happened in the other thread (where also Kim in Portland felt really bad because of my posts, and had to leave -- a fact that does weigh on my conscience.)
Would you be interested in continuing the discussion, including your review of the evidence and the logics of your conclusion? If so, we can talk over the e-mail. I just don't want to post anything on this topic here anymore. My email is yiyomihpe@gmail.com.
Would you be interested in continuing the discussion, including your review of the evidence and the logics of your conclusion? If so, we can talk over the e-mail. I just don't want to post anything on this topic here anymore. My email is yiyomihpe@gmail.com.
247
@245, that's certainly a possibility, Crinoline. That's also the claim made by those who say non-monogamy never works: we hear so little about happily 'monogamish' couples because they don't really exist. Which is why Dan asked them to come forward.
We'll never know how many people there are like unicorn unless they come out and say so out loud.
I don't know how many would check that box. Wouldn't it be interesting to run the experiment?
What's the advantage? :-) It's like asking what's the advantage of being gay, or kinky, or Lutheran. The main problem is not whether it's advantageous, but whether it is harmful. If there really is no good whatsoever in it, nobody (screening out the bad guys first) will want to do it, and then it won't happen. Right?
We'll never know how many people there are like unicorn unless they come out and say so out loud.
I don't know how many would check that box. Wouldn't it be interesting to run the experiment?
What's the advantage? :-) It's like asking what's the advantage of being gay, or kinky, or Lutheran. The main problem is not whether it's advantageous, but whether it is harmful. If there really is no good whatsoever in it, nobody (screening out the bad guys first) will want to do it, and then it won't happen. Right?
248
@245, also, I again point out that some of the first conservative reactions against the existence of gays who were well-balanced, normal, happy individuals was also that it probably was "vanishingly rare". This has now been toned down to "less likely than for straights", and the battle is currently whether this is because homosexuality per se makes it more likely, or whether it is a result of anti-gay stereotypes.
249
@244, yes, 'different unicorns for different cultures', that is something I would agree with. (I'm not sure, though, whether " it is exactly society's viewpoint (is this taboo or is this a custom) that mainly decides whether harm will be suffered", as you point out. Physical harm is physical harm; a broken arm is a broken arm, and this is harm in all cultures. But with this caveat, yes, I think the social-cultural element is very important, and that changing it in the direction you suggest would help the children.)
250
@239(unicorn), who wrote:
That may be true, unicorn. But unless we know what the odds really are (as opposed to what our -- socially constructed -- 'gut feelings' tell us), how can we evaluate the risk?
Also, note that gays also had (and have) all kinds of statisical risks: suicide, depression, mental illnesses, AIDS, and now (as Dan pointed out in another post) they're much more likely to be among the homeless because many families throw gays out when they come out to them. It doesn't follow from that that gays shouldn't pursue their sexuality (even if we assumed that being gay was a choice).
nobody can predict who gets to be the unicorn and who gets life-long PTSD and who will fall somewhere between. It isn't a matter of being well enough groomed. It doesn't seem to matter what your background is. And so long as it's a crapshoot--with loaded dice--as to whether harm will be suffered, it just isn't worth the risk.
That may be true, unicorn. But unless we know what the odds really are (as opposed to what our -- socially constructed -- 'gut feelings' tell us), how can we evaluate the risk?
Also, note that gays also had (and have) all kinds of statisical risks: suicide, depression, mental illnesses, AIDS, and now (as Dan pointed out in another post) they're much more likely to be among the homeless because many families throw gays out when they come out to them. It doesn't follow from that that gays shouldn't pursue their sexuality (even if we assumed that being gay was a choice).
251
@234(are you also unicorn?), I sympathize with your position, but I must point out that there are several studies done on brain development that point out small children are really still different from adults, at a neurocognitive level. They are not simply small people with no experience and less grounding and fewer defenses; they also different in important physiological ways from adults.
In your defense, I'm not sure about how the physical differences between adult and child brains translate to the area of consent. You may well be right -- but you may also be wrong.
I think children indeed have to be handled with care, and that it is correct in principle (as is done in our society) to treat children as being capable of meaningful consent in certain things, but not in others (and to gradually move the borderline upward as the child grows).
But I do think that there are things kept on one (or the other) side of the line for mostly cultural reasons rather than for reasons of inherent harm, or because the child couldn't under any circumstances deal with them. Sex is one such thing.
In your defense, I'm not sure about how the physical differences between adult and child brains translate to the area of consent. You may well be right -- but you may also be wrong.
I think children indeed have to be handled with care, and that it is correct in principle (as is done in our society) to treat children as being capable of meaningful consent in certain things, but not in others (and to gradually move the borderline upward as the child grows).
But I do think that there are things kept on one (or the other) side of the line for mostly cultural reasons rather than for reasons of inherent harm, or because the child couldn't under any circumstances deal with them. Sex is one such thing.
252
@ank
We all have biases.
I'm not going to comment on what mine are or aren't on this subject. But is it possible, perhaps, that your penchant for 'dispassionately' weighing the anthropological and historical contexts of CSA are a wee bit of intellectualization and actually a defense mechanism? This doesn't seem to be a possiblity you've ever addressed or considered, even in passing (I'll admit I haven't read all your posts on this subject. I assumed you mostly reiterated/clarified your same points because several people seemed to be missing them). Intelligent and/or educated people can put up a lot of smoke screeens this way (I see it all the time, and have done it a fair bit myself) and in my eyes this appears to be what you're doing.
I understand your comparison of why victims of CSA bear similarities to LGBTQ people but I personally think it breaks down on close enough examination. That's just my opinion though.
It's also typically in my nature to detach and intellecutalize which is why I didn't throw words at you or become disgusted by your very theoretical original post. You communicated in my language. I read journal articles on CSA for school without it being 'triggering' because it's stats, it's numbers, it's neuroanatamical effects, cognitive effects, endocrine effects. Crinoline's post at 209, on the other hand, made me feel hot and prickly all around my neck. I almost cried reading it and had to sit quietly for a minute without reading anything else. It was visual, it wasn't abstract.
I guess what I'm saying is that you seem to think that you see everything we see with the addition or reason and education which allow you to see more. I would simply suggest that while this may be possible (I don't believe it to be accurate in this case), it's also possible that it distorts your view.
More...
We all have biases.
I'm not going to comment on what mine are or aren't on this subject. But is it possible, perhaps, that your penchant for 'dispassionately' weighing the anthropological and historical contexts of CSA are a wee bit of intellectualization and actually a defense mechanism? This doesn't seem to be a possiblity you've ever addressed or considered, even in passing (I'll admit I haven't read all your posts on this subject. I assumed you mostly reiterated/clarified your same points because several people seemed to be missing them). Intelligent and/or educated people can put up a lot of smoke screeens this way (I see it all the time, and have done it a fair bit myself) and in my eyes this appears to be what you're doing.
I understand your comparison of why victims of CSA bear similarities to LGBTQ people but I personally think it breaks down on close enough examination. That's just my opinion though.
It's also typically in my nature to detach and intellecutalize which is why I didn't throw words at you or become disgusted by your very theoretical original post. You communicated in my language. I read journal articles on CSA for school without it being 'triggering' because it's stats, it's numbers, it's neuroanatamical effects, cognitive effects, endocrine effects. Crinoline's post at 209, on the other hand, made me feel hot and prickly all around my neck. I almost cried reading it and had to sit quietly for a minute without reading anything else. It was visual, it wasn't abstract.
I guess what I'm saying is that you seem to think that you see everything we see with the addition or reason and education which allow you to see more. I would simply suggest that while this may be possible (I don't believe it to be accurate in this case), it's also possible that it distorts your view.
253
Ank, I enjoy reading your posts, and I think that everyone stands to benefit from the consideration of a perspective other than their own. You've pointed out the cultural influences that dictate what is acceptable and what is not. (Your words have also been horribly misconstrued; perhaps willfully, perhaps due to emotional kneejerk responses--granted I skimmed many of the comments, but I did not see anyplace where you ever suggested that a parent should have sex with their child to introduce the child to sex, another emotional or willful misinterpretation?). One thing that I think you're missing is the inherent fact that any indivdual's perception is that person's reality.
The perception is that the American culture is predominant, and that our defintions of what is acceptable and what is not are so correct that surely all other cultures must be in compliance with our thinking. That is apparent in one poster labeling your points about other cultures as a construct that exists only in your imagination. There's a whole big world out there in which not everyone thinks the way that 'we' do, but that doesn't make 'them' wrong by default. I think, as a previous post stated, we are confusing what is ethical with what is legal. While we hope that legal includes ethical, ethical does not always incorporate legal.
The perception is that the American culture is predominant, and that our defintions of what is acceptable and what is not are so correct that surely all other cultures must be in compliance with our thinking. That is apparent in one poster labeling your points about other cultures as a construct that exists only in your imagination. There's a whole big world out there in which not everyone thinks the way that 'we' do, but that doesn't make 'them' wrong by default. I think, as a previous post stated, we are confusing what is ethical with what is legal. While we hope that legal includes ethical, ethical does not always incorporate legal.
254
Mr Ank - I am capable of granting that it might be worth running the experiment - under conditions of infinite time and wealth in various forms of capital. But, as I can't conceive that it would be at all possible for the potential good to outweigh the potential harm by anywhere even beginning to approach the proportion necessary to make it worth even looking at the possibility of implementation, your experiemnt is one that at best I'd file under Things That Might Be Interesting to Know.
That's as favourable to your point of view as I am capable of being. Please don't push; you won't get any further. If you want to spend all your capital on this cause, you have every right to do so. Mine is insufficient for the quarters where I know it can accomplish something doable.
And if you want me to engage on the question of comparable societal prejudices, pick a different societal prejudice, please - preferably one that doesn't affect a large portion of the posters here. I know, it's like the Red Queen telling Alice she couldn't deny that if she tried with both hands, but there we are. Sorry.
That's as favourable to your point of view as I am capable of being. Please don't push; you won't get any further. If you want to spend all your capital on this cause, you have every right to do so. Mine is insufficient for the quarters where I know it can accomplish something doable.
And if you want me to engage on the question of comparable societal prejudices, pick a different societal prejudice, please - preferably one that doesn't affect a large portion of the posters here. I know, it's like the Red Queen telling Alice she couldn't deny that if she tried with both hands, but there we are. Sorry.
255
@252(mydriasis),
I agree. We all have biases. Myself included.
I do consider this possibility. I think I said it in the other thread, but just for the record, let me say it here explicitly:
(a) I do accept the possibility that my opinion is wrong, and
(b) that it might be the result of self-delusion, based (or not) on my own bad experiences in the past. (In fact, I could even hazard guesses as to what it might be, if I look dispassonately at my own past abuse.)
But I must add: I hope you all also admit the possibility that the currently accepted opinion about CSA might also be wrong, and for cultural reasons (which is the social equivalent of (b) above).
(Re-reading your post, I see you did admit this possibility at the end. Fair enough. There is nothing else I can reasonably ask you to do. Thank you for that.)
Having said that, I still maintain that an idea stands and falls on its merits alone, not on the reasons I may or may not have for believing in it.
The repetition you mention is indeed the result of people making the same points again -- possibly because they weren't always the same people and hadn't read all the comments. I have also seen people, and intelligent ones at that, throw the smokescreen you mentioned (you should see certain unnamed Chomskyan linguists giving talks...); but I don't that this what I'm doing. I don't think I repeated anything there just for the sake of repetition; my reactions were usuallly addressed to specific commenters who seemed to me to have missed the point.
I'm OK if you think the analogy breaks down. I'm sure most people here agree with you. I hope you won't be offended if I say I think it doesn't break down, though. And if I expand on why not. (It's not personal, against you or anyone specifically. It's just really what I think is true, plus the reasons why.)
Crinoline's description also touched me (though in my case the feelings were in the stomach, and were more akin to a desire to vomit). Among other things, because my daughter was in the shower when I read that, and I could hear the water. Talk about a physical reaction!... The only thing I can hope, though, is that you may remain open to the possibility that, despite our revulsion, it may actually be... that nothing bad happened in that second case. That there was no harm to the girl. Or, if there was, that it came from cultural construal (since the father did nothing to the girl, other than have an erection), since there isn't per se anything physical in an erection that should harm a person it hasn't even touched.
I am against inflicting harm. Iam not in favor of abuse. Never was, never will be. I am in no way trying to support abuse in any form, in any way, of anyone, never, nowhere.
I am only suggesting that the equation child+sex=abuse=evil may not always hold. That there may be circumstances, and cases (how many? who knows?) -- even in our society, with its huge anti-CSA bias -- in which this would not be harmful. (Like the case of unicorn above.)
More...
I agree. We all have biases. Myself included.
I do consider this possibility. I think I said it in the other thread, but just for the record, let me say it here explicitly:
(a) I do accept the possibility that my opinion is wrong, and
(b) that it might be the result of self-delusion, based (or not) on my own bad experiences in the past. (In fact, I could even hazard guesses as to what it might be, if I look dispassonately at my own past abuse.)
But I must add: I hope you all also admit the possibility that the currently accepted opinion about CSA might also be wrong, and for cultural reasons (which is the social equivalent of (b) above).
(Re-reading your post, I see you did admit this possibility at the end. Fair enough. There is nothing else I can reasonably ask you to do. Thank you for that.)
Having said that, I still maintain that an idea stands and falls on its merits alone, not on the reasons I may or may not have for believing in it.
The repetition you mention is indeed the result of people making the same points again -- possibly because they weren't always the same people and hadn't read all the comments. I have also seen people, and intelligent ones at that, throw the smokescreen you mentioned (you should see certain unnamed Chomskyan linguists giving talks...); but I don't that this what I'm doing. I don't think I repeated anything there just for the sake of repetition; my reactions were usuallly addressed to specific commenters who seemed to me to have missed the point.
I'm OK if you think the analogy breaks down. I'm sure most people here agree with you. I hope you won't be offended if I say I think it doesn't break down, though. And if I expand on why not. (It's not personal, against you or anyone specifically. It's just really what I think is true, plus the reasons why.)
Crinoline's description also touched me (though in my case the feelings were in the stomach, and were more akin to a desire to vomit). Among other things, because my daughter was in the shower when I read that, and I could hear the water. Talk about a physical reaction!... The only thing I can hope, though, is that you may remain open to the possibility that, despite our revulsion, it may actually be... that nothing bad happened in that second case. That there was no harm to the girl. Or, if there was, that it came from cultural construal (since the father did nothing to the girl, other than have an erection), since there isn't per se anything physical in an erection that should harm a person it hasn't even touched.
I am against inflicting harm. Iam not in favor of abuse. Never was, never will be. I am in no way trying to support abuse in any form, in any way, of anyone, never, nowhere.
I am only suggesting that the equation child+sex=abuse=evil may not always hold. That there may be circumstances, and cases (how many? who knows?) -- even in our society, with its huge anti-CSA bias -- in which this would not be harmful. (Like the case of unicorn above.)
256
My, Ank, and others. Please accept my apologies. I was looking for the most benign and fictional example to illustrate my point and am sorry I wasn't able to think of something even more benign or abstract. It was never my intention to make anyone ill, even momentarily.
I keep thinking I'm making my last post on the subject, then feel compelled to keep going. Here's (yet again) the crux of our disagreement on the subject. Ankylosaur says that nothing bad happened in that 2nd (fictional) case since the father did nothing to the girl. If there was harm, it was cultural. I'd say that harm was done and that the harm has nothing to do with the culture.
To say that there isn't anything per se physical is to say that threats can't harm anyone even if they're not carried out or that being dangled over a cliff isn't harmful even if you're not dropped. But there I go making the abstract concrete again, and I don't mean to do that. I am sorry.
I keep thinking I'm making my last post on the subject, then feel compelled to keep going. Here's (yet again) the crux of our disagreement on the subject. Ankylosaur says that nothing bad happened in that 2nd (fictional) case since the father did nothing to the girl. If there was harm, it was cultural. I'd say that harm was done and that the harm has nothing to do with the culture.
To say that there isn't anything per se physical is to say that threats can't harm anyone even if they're not carried out or that being dangled over a cliff isn't harmful even if you're not dropped. But there I go making the abstract concrete again, and I don't mean to do that. I am sorry.
257
I see there are already 250 comments to this column, so maybe mine won't be seen by too many people. I need some advice a situation I have struggled with for years.
Here it is in 12 points:
1. I have a friend who I've known for 35 years.
2. He came out to me only after 15 years into the friendship. He's never come out to his parents and to only one other friend. He is 56.
3. In 35 years I have never seen him in any sort of romantic relationship.
4. I don't know if it matters, but I am straight, married, and have two grown children.
5. About 10 years ago, when I asked him (I'd been picking up clues for years) he told me he was a "boy lover."
6. He's been to NAMBLA meetings in other cities. He believes that boys and men can have healthy loving, sexual relationships - as long as it is consensual.
7. I have tried to be sympathetic and supportive. He rejects counseling because of legal reasons, and he doesn't see it as an illness (although he'd obviously rather not have this).
8. He has acted out, at least once, an act of suicide (by hanging).
9. He works closely, on a weekly basis, with Boy Scouts. He's done so for years.
10. He lives with his sister, brother-in-law, and their three boys. One of the boys, about fifteen years old, is pretty obviously gay.
11. He's employed at a county youth shelter (but no longer works directly with the children).
12. He claims he does not have sex with underage boys, because he knows he'd end up in jail.
WHAT SHOULD I DO??? WHAT ARE MY OBLIGATIONS???
Here it is in 12 points:
1. I have a friend who I've known for 35 years.
2. He came out to me only after 15 years into the friendship. He's never come out to his parents and to only one other friend. He is 56.
3. In 35 years I have never seen him in any sort of romantic relationship.
4. I don't know if it matters, but I am straight, married, and have two grown children.
5. About 10 years ago, when I asked him (I'd been picking up clues for years) he told me he was a "boy lover."
6. He's been to NAMBLA meetings in other cities. He believes that boys and men can have healthy loving, sexual relationships - as long as it is consensual.
7. I have tried to be sympathetic and supportive. He rejects counseling because of legal reasons, and he doesn't see it as an illness (although he'd obviously rather not have this).
8. He has acted out, at least once, an act of suicide (by hanging).
9. He works closely, on a weekly basis, with Boy Scouts. He's done so for years.
10. He lives with his sister, brother-in-law, and their three boys. One of the boys, about fifteen years old, is pretty obviously gay.
11. He's employed at a county youth shelter (but no longer works directly with the children).
12. He claims he does not have sex with underage boys, because he knows he'd end up in jail.
WHAT SHOULD I DO??? WHAT ARE MY OBLIGATIONS???
258
I see there are already 250 comments to this column, so maybe mine won't be seen by too many people. I need some advice a situation I have struggled with for years.
Here it is in 12 points:
1. I have a friend who I've known for 35 years.
2. He came out to me only after 15 years into the friendship. He's never come out to his parents and to only one other friend. He is 56.
3. In 35 years I have never seen him in any sort of romantic relationship.
4. I don't know if it matters, but I am straight, married, and have two grown children.
5. About 10 years ago, when I asked him (I'd been picking up clues for years) he told me he was a "boy lover."
6. He's been to NAMBLA meetings in other cities. He believes that boys and men can have healthy loving, sexual relationships - as long as it is consensual.
7. I have tried to be sympathetic and supportive. He rejects counseling because of legal reasons, and he doesn't see it as an illness (although he'd obviously rather not have this).
8. He has acted out, at least once, an act of suicide (by hanging).
9. He works closely, on a weekly basis, with Boy Scouts. He's done so for years.
10. He lives with his sister, brother-in-law, and their three boys. One of the boys, about fifteen years old, is pretty obviously gay.
11. He's employed at a county youth shelter (but no longer works directly with the children).
12. He claims he does not have sex with underage boys, because he knows he'd end up in jail.
WHAT SHOULD I DO??? WHAT ARE MY OBLIGATIONS???
Here it is in 12 points:
1. I have a friend who I've known for 35 years.
2. He came out to me only after 15 years into the friendship. He's never come out to his parents and to only one other friend. He is 56.
3. In 35 years I have never seen him in any sort of romantic relationship.
4. I don't know if it matters, but I am straight, married, and have two grown children.
5. About 10 years ago, when I asked him (I'd been picking up clues for years) he told me he was a "boy lover."
6. He's been to NAMBLA meetings in other cities. He believes that boys and men can have healthy loving, sexual relationships - as long as it is consensual.
7. I have tried to be sympathetic and supportive. He rejects counseling because of legal reasons, and he doesn't see it as an illness (although he'd obviously rather not have this).
8. He has acted out, at least once, an act of suicide (by hanging).
9. He works closely, on a weekly basis, with Boy Scouts. He's done so for years.
10. He lives with his sister, brother-in-law, and their three boys. One of the boys, about fifteen years old, is pretty obviously gay.
11. He's employed at a county youth shelter (but no longer works directly with the children).
12. He claims he does not have sex with underage boys, because he knows he'd end up in jail.
WHAT SHOULD I DO??? WHAT ARE MY OBLIGATIONS???
259
@244: To take the child out of the equation, what we're saying is that if rape was treated as no worse (and no more shameful) than any other injury, it wouldn't be as harmful? In other words, is the fact that society views rape as the worst thing that can happen to a woman (sexual abuse as the worst thing that can happen to a child) a self-fulfilling prophecy? I'll certainly admit that's possible; it's almost definitely an influence. On the other hand, being the victim of a mugging isn't particularly shameful, and people can still get PTSD from it. I think even in a society that accepts sex with children, the harm done to specific children would depend on the child (and the adult). I don't think there's a level of societal acceptance that would mean NO children were harmed--but I think it might be possible for there to be enough societal acceptance for children who ARE harmed to have a difficult time finding a sympathetic ear, like in the fundamentalist branch of the Mormons.
As for my own case, I'm not sure what details you want, ankylosaur. My abuser (honestly, it feels weird to call him that, since I don't feel I was harmed, but I don't know another word) was the young adult son of friends of my parents, and had a brother my age, so he'd often come over with his folks or bring his brother to play. During crap weather, or when it was too late to go out, we'd play house--which I at first hated because as the only girl I had to be the Mom, a fate worse than death for a dedicated tomboy. Introducing sex to house made it vastly more entertaining, and after the first time, I volunteered for Mom. When he moved away, I was heartbroken.
I can't say I'm better off for the experience--who can know these things?--but I don't regret it, either. My adult relationships have been all been with women, which a shrink I had to see in college pointed to as a side-effect of abuse, but I think it's just that adult sexuality is different--and trying to "cure the gay" was still a thing when I was young.
More...
As for my own case, I'm not sure what details you want, ankylosaur. My abuser (honestly, it feels weird to call him that, since I don't feel I was harmed, but I don't know another word) was the young adult son of friends of my parents, and had a brother my age, so he'd often come over with his folks or bring his brother to play. During crap weather, or when it was too late to go out, we'd play house--which I at first hated because as the only girl I had to be the Mom, a fate worse than death for a dedicated tomboy. Introducing sex to house made it vastly more entertaining, and after the first time, I volunteered for Mom. When he moved away, I was heartbroken.
I can't say I'm better off for the experience--who can know these things?--but I don't regret it, either. My adult relationships have been all been with women, which a shrink I had to see in college pointed to as a side-effect of abuse, but I think it's just that adult sexuality is different--and trying to "cure the gay" was still a thing when I was young.
260
I would like to just offer myself as an anecdote that might provide a bit of hope to CWIA and others like him.
I had a frequent active sexual (no penetration or oral) relationship with another same age boy from 11 yo to about 16. (With extreme guilt of course, catholic schools)
Although I tried to repress my gay and pedophillic feelings, I still find boys beautiful and erotically attractive.
I married a woman (19 years together) and had a son. Yes, I sometimes saw my beautiful son as sexually attractive. I did not ever touch him sexually or any boy ever as an adult and never will nor do I look at illegal porn.
I have worked hard to accept myself both as a gay man and a gay man with partly pedophillic feelings. (They are not exclusively for boys)
I believe that "fantasy does no harm". I have a lot of respect for Dan Savage and always especially follow closely when this topic comes up which is why I just read all the comments here. I only rarely come to this site. I think Dan has to be very careful about this topic for his reputation sake which may be why his advice on this topic seems different than all the others where he seems to agree with my idea that "fantasy does no harm' rather than you need reparative therapy.
As for me, I finally came out at age 40 when I met a beautiful 35 year old gay Asian man and found a mutual love and attraction with him. He was just 5'0 and just under 100 pounds when we met. He loves to be my 'boy' and keeps the hairless boy look completely for me, and I love to be his man. That was over 20 years ago, and we are married now and still deeply in love and lust.
Dan savage once wrote in another response to a couple like us that it was ok to fantasize age regression or whatever because they just wanted to have a fantasy as one partner as a boy and wouldn't really want sex with a real boy. Well, I think that is not really true. If it were possible to know my current spouse as a real boy I would love to have sex with him, or if the society we live in had man-boy sex as acceptable, I would want it.
But of course I know this will never happen. We can not go back to the many societies where adult males were given access to boys for sexual pleasure. There were lots, not just Greeks. By the way, I am very widely read in the area of 'Queer Studies'.
(Read "Born to Be Gay". I don't like the title but it is a highly informative scholarly history of homosexuality globally)
I also wanted to say that regarding the second letter from the woman into D/s that the key is to keep that play in the private sexual time. Don't show that to her daughter in even subtle manifestations. My partner and I also play around a bit with Dom Dad and sub boy being shown off or whatever, but that is strictly for our private playtime. In daily life,
we are equal partners in all matters.
So CWIA, it is possible to indulge in fantasy and never go to the reality. Somehow I doubt it can be wished away. I tried and failed.
But I am now a very happy mid 60s man with a beautiful 59 yo boy! He will always be my little boy who never grows up.
And yes, I do look at the real beautiful boys around me. Looking does no harm either.
More...
I had a frequent active sexual (no penetration or oral) relationship with another same age boy from 11 yo to about 16. (With extreme guilt of course, catholic schools)
Although I tried to repress my gay and pedophillic feelings, I still find boys beautiful and erotically attractive.
I married a woman (19 years together) and had a son. Yes, I sometimes saw my beautiful son as sexually attractive. I did not ever touch him sexually or any boy ever as an adult and never will nor do I look at illegal porn.
I have worked hard to accept myself both as a gay man and a gay man with partly pedophillic feelings. (They are not exclusively for boys)
I believe that "fantasy does no harm". I have a lot of respect for Dan Savage and always especially follow closely when this topic comes up which is why I just read all the comments here. I only rarely come to this site. I think Dan has to be very careful about this topic for his reputation sake which may be why his advice on this topic seems different than all the others where he seems to agree with my idea that "fantasy does no harm' rather than you need reparative therapy.
As for me, I finally came out at age 40 when I met a beautiful 35 year old gay Asian man and found a mutual love and attraction with him. He was just 5'0 and just under 100 pounds when we met. He loves to be my 'boy' and keeps the hairless boy look completely for me, and I love to be his man. That was over 20 years ago, and we are married now and still deeply in love and lust.
Dan savage once wrote in another response to a couple like us that it was ok to fantasize age regression or whatever because they just wanted to have a fantasy as one partner as a boy and wouldn't really want sex with a real boy. Well, I think that is not really true. If it were possible to know my current spouse as a real boy I would love to have sex with him, or if the society we live in had man-boy sex as acceptable, I would want it.
But of course I know this will never happen. We can not go back to the many societies where adult males were given access to boys for sexual pleasure. There were lots, not just Greeks. By the way, I am very widely read in the area of 'Queer Studies'.
(Read "Born to Be Gay". I don't like the title but it is a highly informative scholarly history of homosexuality globally)
I also wanted to say that regarding the second letter from the woman into D/s that the key is to keep that play in the private sexual time. Don't show that to her daughter in even subtle manifestations. My partner and I also play around a bit with Dom Dad and sub boy being shown off or whatever, but that is strictly for our private playtime. In daily life,
we are equal partners in all matters.
So CWIA, it is possible to indulge in fantasy and never go to the reality. Somehow I doubt it can be wished away. I tried and failed.
But I am now a very happy mid 60s man with a beautiful 59 yo boy! He will always be my little boy who never grows up.
And yes, I do look at the real beautiful boys around me. Looking does no harm either.
261
@Mr Ven, I myself feel more like the Red Queen running with all her might to stay where she was. No, I don't intend to invest any time on this question, and my point is more about keeping an open mind than about convincing people to try experiments.
What you said you could do is already (more than I expected, and I appreciate that. More perhaps than you imagine.
What you said you could do is already (more than I expected, and I appreciate that. More perhaps than you imagine.
262
@258 (PRD), here is my opinion.
Try to get him into counseling with a friendly therapist -- as Dan says in his advice to CWIA, and as others have said here, the obligation to report is true only if there is case for suspicion of harm. You're obviously afraid that he has already found 'boy lovers' and harmed them. If his claim that this is not true is correct, since therapists are not required to report unless there is real danger, he would be (at least at first) safe. Tell him that if he refuses, then it will look like he is lying, and you'll be afraid of what might happen. Make it clear to him that, if he doesn't talk to a therapist as soon as possible, then the situation will force you to report him -- to the police.
Here's the basic point: if he is indeed telling the truth and nobody was harmed, he should be able to go to a (friendly) therapist -- check the suggestions of the doctor in Dan's advice -- and make his case there. If he isn't, then you'd feel like you have sufficient cause to fear danger. Tell him it would be unfair for him to put you in such a position. Bargain with him, do whatever it takes -- but get him to talk to a qualified professional.
If he won't, under any circumstances, ever, even without risk of going to jail... then I'd report him. Because I would feel the risk is too high, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't.
Try to get him into counseling with a friendly therapist -- as Dan says in his advice to CWIA, and as others have said here, the obligation to report is true only if there is case for suspicion of harm. You're obviously afraid that he has already found 'boy lovers' and harmed them. If his claim that this is not true is correct, since therapists are not required to report unless there is real danger, he would be (at least at first) safe. Tell him that if he refuses, then it will look like he is lying, and you'll be afraid of what might happen. Make it clear to him that, if he doesn't talk to a therapist as soon as possible, then the situation will force you to report him -- to the police.
Here's the basic point: if he is indeed telling the truth and nobody was harmed, he should be able to go to a (friendly) therapist -- check the suggestions of the doctor in Dan's advice -- and make his case there. If he isn't, then you'd feel like you have sufficient cause to fear danger. Tell him it would be unfair for him to put you in such a position. Bargain with him, do whatever it takes -- but get him to talk to a qualified professional.
If he won't, under any circumstances, ever, even without risk of going to jail... then I'd report him. Because I would feel the risk is too high, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't.
263
@260(Fantasy Dom), I am truly glad that you found ways to live with your desires that meant no harm to anybody, and I applaud your courage in actually saying it out loud. Dan's concept of 'Gold Star Pedophiles' certainly applies to you.
I sincerely hope that it will be possible for pedophiles in our culture to find some solution like yours -- age play with a younger, but not minor, consenting partner. I hear this is not the case for every one of them, but -- as you demonstrate -- it does work in some cases. It certainly is an open option, and -- who knows? -- it might work for CWIA.
And I also agree that looking does no harm. As long, of course, as you don't look in a way that makes the beautiful boys, or those who are with them or care about them, uncomfortable.
I'm glad you've found happiness. I wish you and your happy 'boy' even more of it.
I sincerely hope that it will be possible for pedophiles in our culture to find some solution like yours -- age play with a younger, but not minor, consenting partner. I hear this is not the case for every one of them, but -- as you demonstrate -- it does work in some cases. It certainly is an open option, and -- who knows? -- it might work for CWIA.
And I also agree that looking does no harm. As long, of course, as you don't look in a way that makes the beautiful boys, or those who are with them or care about them, uncomfortable.
I'm glad you've found happiness. I wish you and your happy 'boy' even more of it.
264
@258, Me, I would tell him that he has three months to remove himself from all situations with under-age boys (move out of the house, quit his job, quit Boy Scouts), AND also start seeing a therapist.
If I didn't see those actions, I would tell his sister, his employer, and the scout parents that he had attended NAMBLA meetings in other cities and confessed to pedophilia.
No one in his situation should be working so closely (and living so closely) with young boys. There are no excuses.
If I didn't see those actions, I would tell his sister, his employer, and the scout parents that he had attended NAMBLA meetings in other cities and confessed to pedophilia.
No one in his situation should be working so closely (and living so closely) with young boys. There are no excuses.
265
@Crinoline, I am the last person who would criticize you for not resisting the temptation of writing one more post. I'm much guiltier than you, of the same sin.
No problem with your description. The fact my daughter was in the shower was a coincidence that you couldn't possibly have predicted. (Nor the fact that I also used to bathe my daughter, just like in your first description, when she was too young and couldn't bathe herself. My wife always trusted me on that.) Besides, to me, my reaction is evidence that I, too, am a product of my culture.
You say in the second situation that harm was done, and that it's not related to the culture (i.e., it doesn't depend on what the daughter and/or father think is appropriate for fathers/daughters in that context in our culture).
So here is my question: what was the harm? You say he didn't touch her. I presume the only thing that happened is that the daughter saw the father's erection. Do you really think that -- without the influence of culture -- this mere vision would be enough to cause harm, even trauma, with PSTD and all? (At age 5, the daughter might even not have been 'enlightened' about sex yet, so she might not even know that her father's erection implied sexual desire.) Unless someone had somehow made her understand that 'erections were a threat' (meaning - semantics - symbolism) -- how would she know? How could she feel threatened, or harmed?
Note: an erection is not per se a 'threat', just a physical reaction; it implies desire, but it doesn't imply that the desire is out of control, or even that the object of this desire is present in the room. Just like a fist is not necessarily aggressive (in some cultures it's a religious symbol), or an open hand is not necessarily a gesture of peace (in Greece, as I recall, it's a sexual offense, like a raised middle finger). An erection is not like hanging over a cliff, with gravity as an inescapable physical force pulling down. I imagine the girl would feel scared if she was hanging over a cliff for a much, much more obviously dangeorus reason, than because of an erection the cause of which she might not even be informed about.
(And note one could even make the argument, though I don't think it's necessary, that hanging over a cliff could be considered a good thing in some cultures -- say, as an initiation ritual for boys who are to become men. Some cultures do much worse than that. But this is really not necessary for the argument.)
More...
No problem with your description. The fact my daughter was in the shower was a coincidence that you couldn't possibly have predicted. (Nor the fact that I also used to bathe my daughter, just like in your first description, when she was too young and couldn't bathe herself. My wife always trusted me on that.) Besides, to me, my reaction is evidence that I, too, am a product of my culture.
You say in the second situation that harm was done, and that it's not related to the culture (i.e., it doesn't depend on what the daughter and/or father think is appropriate for fathers/daughters in that context in our culture).
So here is my question: what was the harm? You say he didn't touch her. I presume the only thing that happened is that the daughter saw the father's erection. Do you really think that -- without the influence of culture -- this mere vision would be enough to cause harm, even trauma, with PSTD and all? (At age 5, the daughter might even not have been 'enlightened' about sex yet, so she might not even know that her father's erection implied sexual desire.) Unless someone had somehow made her understand that 'erections were a threat' (meaning - semantics - symbolism) -- how would she know? How could she feel threatened, or harmed?
Note: an erection is not per se a 'threat', just a physical reaction; it implies desire, but it doesn't imply that the desire is out of control, or even that the object of this desire is present in the room. Just like a fist is not necessarily aggressive (in some cultures it's a religious symbol), or an open hand is not necessarily a gesture of peace (in Greece, as I recall, it's a sexual offense, like a raised middle finger). An erection is not like hanging over a cliff, with gravity as an inescapable physical force pulling down. I imagine the girl would feel scared if she was hanging over a cliff for a much, much more obviously dangeorus reason, than because of an erection the cause of which she might not even be informed about.
(And note one could even make the argument, though I don't think it's necessary, that hanging over a cliff could be considered a good thing in some cultures -- say, as an initiation ritual for boys who are to become men. Some cultures do much worse than that. But this is really not necessary for the argument.)
266
@254(catballou), thank you, I appreciate your opinion. I understand that many people don't know about how different other cultures can be (Brazilians are just like Americans in this respect; most of them think everything is or should be the way it is there. Though given all those American movies we watch, they understand that at least some things are different in America, they aren't sure they forgive the Americans for that. :-)
Thank you again.
Thank you again.
267
@255 you propose disingenuously that: "the equation child+sex=abuse=evil may not always hold."
But you really mean: "the equation child+ADULT+sex=abuse=evil may not always hold."
I still think the risk of serious abuse is too high to envision combining these three things:
- adult arousal
- normal adult authority over children
- the decriminalization of adult/child sex play
And if I had "conditions of infinite time and wealth in various forms of capital," per Mr. Ven, I'd put my wealth and time into inventing cool sex robots for children before I'd run experiments involving aroused adults with children.
But you really mean: "the equation child+ADULT+sex=abuse=evil may not always hold."
I still think the risk of serious abuse is too high to envision combining these three things:
- adult arousal
- normal adult authority over children
- the decriminalization of adult/child sex play
And if I had "conditions of infinite time and wealth in various forms of capital," per Mr. Ven, I'd put my wealth and time into inventing cool sex robots for children before I'd run experiments involving aroused adults with children.
268
By the way, ankylosaur, if you're sincerely interested in questioning assumptions about sex, there are lots of interesting topics. We could talk about honor killings, about cultures that encourage men to kill women for having sex outside the approved norms.
I bet many (most?) women in those cultures feel safer, knowing that their men are taking good care of them and protecting their honor. Would you grant that the equation killing-dishonored-women = evil may not always hold?
Or prison rape. Would you grant that the equation "powerful-prisoner + weak-prisoner + sex = evil may not always hold?
I bet many (most?) women in those cultures feel safer, knowing that their men are taking good care of them and protecting their honor. Would you grant that the equation killing-dishonored-women = evil may not always hold?
Or prison rape. Would you grant that the equation "powerful-prisoner + weak-prisoner + sex = evil may not always hold?
269
Mr Ven.
It seems, I now realize, that you were right in the other thread, when you accused me of wanting to be right rather than nice.
In a thread with reasonably many offensive words and knee-jerk reactions, those words did get to me. Maybe they are just an English expression I hadn't heard before, I don't know; if so, please pardon my probably exaggerated reaction; but since they involve two things -- 'right' (= truth) and 'nice' (= goodness) -- that I always held as ideals, as beacons of light in my conscience, for various different but important reasons... And plus considering Kim in Portland's reaction (which, as you pointed out, was my fault, and does weigh on my conscience), plus the recent funeral of a dear old friend, a great colleague and old lover... your words did get to me. Like being hit by a club.
If I did indeed, as you hinted at several times, hurt you with some of my comments -- about Louie C.K., or about words not being bad in themselves, but rather people, or by writing long, repetitive posts about trivialities -- then you've got your revenge. Of all posts there, yours (and Kim's) were the only ones that brought tears to my eyes. (I know this sounds like an overreaction -- especially if indeed 'rather right than nice' is a common expression that I simply didn't know -- but it would make sense against the context of my life if you had more details about it).
You confronted me with the opposition of my two ideals, and I think you're right. Truth outweighs good. I would rather find truth ('be right', as you said) than avoid harm ('be nice'). And realizing this does, indeed, hurt me. Perhaps I am not as ethical as I thought (or wished) I was.
Thank you. Sincerely. Better to know than not to know.
More...
It seems, I now realize, that you were right in the other thread, when you accused me of wanting to be right rather than nice.
In a thread with reasonably many offensive words and knee-jerk reactions, those words did get to me. Maybe they are just an English expression I hadn't heard before, I don't know; if so, please pardon my probably exaggerated reaction; but since they involve two things -- 'right' (= truth) and 'nice' (= goodness) -- that I always held as ideals, as beacons of light in my conscience, for various different but important reasons... And plus considering Kim in Portland's reaction (which, as you pointed out, was my fault, and does weigh on my conscience), plus the recent funeral of a dear old friend, a great colleague and old lover... your words did get to me. Like being hit by a club.
If I did indeed, as you hinted at several times, hurt you with some of my comments -- about Louie C.K., or about words not being bad in themselves, but rather people, or by writing long, repetitive posts about trivialities -- then you've got your revenge. Of all posts there, yours (and Kim's) were the only ones that brought tears to my eyes. (I know this sounds like an overreaction -- especially if indeed 'rather right than nice' is a common expression that I simply didn't know -- but it would make sense against the context of my life if you had more details about it).
You confronted me with the opposition of my two ideals, and I think you're right. Truth outweighs good. I would rather find truth ('be right', as you said) than avoid harm ('be nice'). And realizing this does, indeed, hurt me. Perhaps I am not as ethical as I thought (or wished) I was.
Thank you. Sincerely. Better to know than not to know.
270
Ankylosaur, how about an adult male pleasuring himself to climax on a 3 month old infant? Without penetration no physical harm is done. And no emotional harm is done since the infant will not remember it. Please tell me you haven't "educated" your mind backwards so far as to not recognize that would be a morally repugnant act REGARDLESS of the lack of "harm". In the words of George Orwell, "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."
271
@267 (EricaP), not disingenously. I made a mistake. I'm sorry. I did mean children+ADULT sex (CSA as mydriasis put it). Maybe the context of this comments thread, or my previous posts, would have made it clear. But still I did make a mistake.
I'm sorry.
On your bullet points:
- Adult arousal can be controlled. If it couldn't, then Heartbroken's boyfriend from last week's column would be right, he just "couldn't control himself", and no man could ever be trusted to act ethically when sex and arousal are involved.
- Normal adult authority over children (the power imbalance) can and is circumvented in all kinds of child-adult interactions in real life. I know you don't like the sports metaphor, but this point is exactly what that metaphor is supposed to attack: namely, that because adults have authority they can never give a child room to interact with them (adults) with self-agency. Or else, there would be no point in playing games with children, in which normal adult authority is lessened (or even suspended) so that the game can be meaningful.
- I think what should be always criminalized is child-adult abuse. As for sex play, the variables are so complicated that I probably wouldn't favor decriminalization, unless there was a very good description of the set of circumstances under which this would happen, and the child's safety was kept secure. (I don't agree with the Ancient Greeks that this would be easy to solve; I think it would involve real problems. It's clearly not as simple as legalizing sodomy.)
But in the interest of those who might be happier if it were adopted (like unicorn above), I hope someday a better solution than mere criminalization can be found. Meanwhile, I hope you won't begrudge unicorn, and those like him, for not reporting the adults they had sex just because there was no harm. I hope such people, no matter how few they are, will manage to escape the law.
I wish you luck with your research on sex bots for children. I hope you won't mind if I'm afraid of the possible consequences of robots who wouldn't be able to react with a real human's sense of context and would be much less good than a real human at picking and perceiving the needs of a child -- I tend to think good sex robots for children would be as difficult to build as good robot parents -- but maybe I'm wrong and you're right. I certainly don't have data on the topic.
More...
I'm sorry.
On your bullet points:
- Adult arousal can be controlled. If it couldn't, then Heartbroken's boyfriend from last week's column would be right, he just "couldn't control himself", and no man could ever be trusted to act ethically when sex and arousal are involved.
- Normal adult authority over children (the power imbalance) can and is circumvented in all kinds of child-adult interactions in real life. I know you don't like the sports metaphor, but this point is exactly what that metaphor is supposed to attack: namely, that because adults have authority they can never give a child room to interact with them (adults) with self-agency. Or else, there would be no point in playing games with children, in which normal adult authority is lessened (or even suspended) so that the game can be meaningful.
- I think what should be always criminalized is child-adult abuse. As for sex play, the variables are so complicated that I probably wouldn't favor decriminalization, unless there was a very good description of the set of circumstances under which this would happen, and the child's safety was kept secure. (I don't agree with the Ancient Greeks that this would be easy to solve; I think it would involve real problems. It's clearly not as simple as legalizing sodomy.)
But in the interest of those who might be happier if it were adopted (like unicorn above), I hope someday a better solution than mere criminalization can be found. Meanwhile, I hope you won't begrudge unicorn, and those like him, for not reporting the adults they had sex just because there was no harm. I hope such people, no matter how few they are, will manage to escape the law.
I wish you luck with your research on sex bots for children. I hope you won't mind if I'm afraid of the possible consequences of robots who wouldn't be able to react with a real human's sense of context and would be much less good than a real human at picking and perceiving the needs of a child -- I tend to think good sex robots for children would be as difficult to build as good robot parents -- but maybe I'm wrong and you're right. I certainly don't have data on the topic.
272
Ankylosaur and EricaP, thanks for the responses. I have struggled with this for years; maybe I have been irresponsible.
Issuing an ultimatum like you suggest would definitely end the relationship (which I could live with).
This guy doesn't have much in his life, and I think the scouts - provided no one is being abused - really benefit from his involvement. (Frankly, I am surprised none of the parents have raised questions about him. Maybe they're just relieved there's someone to do activities so they don't have to!).
But to me, being around boys all the time is like an alcoholic working in a brewery. Not a good idea.
Also, the play-acting hanging he told me he did (sitting on the floor, rope around neck and door knob) - what if he commits suicide after I reveal his inclinations? I pleaded with him to get some counseling about this, too.
He's really put me in a tight spot.
Issuing an ultimatum like you suggest would definitely end the relationship (which I could live with).
This guy doesn't have much in his life, and I think the scouts - provided no one is being abused - really benefit from his involvement. (Frankly, I am surprised none of the parents have raised questions about him. Maybe they're just relieved there's someone to do activities so they don't have to!).
But to me, being around boys all the time is like an alcoholic working in a brewery. Not a good idea.
Also, the play-acting hanging he told me he did (sitting on the floor, rope around neck and door knob) - what if he commits suicide after I reveal his inclinations? I pleaded with him to get some counseling about this, too.
He's really put me in a tight spot.
273
265 Ankylosaur--
To reiterate:
Do I really think that without the influence of culture the mere fact of a 5 year old being bathed by a man who was actively turned on by giving her the bath causes harm? Yes. I've said as much in many ways.
Why? Because it does.
How? I don't know, but it does.
How do I know? Now adult children who have been abused (NACWHBA) have said so.
Can I be sure without collecting data from NACWHBA or rather don't use the term abuse for the sexual contact? It's not worth speculating on what it would take to do that sort of research.
Still not sure of my position? Reread my posts.
How is it possible if she doesn't even see or understand what an erection is? I think EricaP used the term "vibe," and that works for me. (Thanks, EricaP.)
What was the harm? The well documented fear, loathing, sexual dysfunction, and self hatred that abuse survivors describe all too well.
Have more questions? Read my posts again (and again). I'm bored, and you're playing the game of pretending not to understand so I'll repeat myself and that in doing so, I'll suddenly decide I'm being inconsistent and will agree with you. I've expressed myself quite well, I'm sure. If you don't understand, try harder, or let it rest.
To reiterate:
Do I really think that without the influence of culture the mere fact of a 5 year old being bathed by a man who was actively turned on by giving her the bath causes harm? Yes. I've said as much in many ways.
Why? Because it does.
How? I don't know, but it does.
How do I know? Now adult children who have been abused (NACWHBA) have said so.
Can I be sure without collecting data from NACWHBA or rather don't use the term abuse for the sexual contact? It's not worth speculating on what it would take to do that sort of research.
Still not sure of my position? Reread my posts.
How is it possible if she doesn't even see or understand what an erection is? I think EricaP used the term "vibe," and that works for me. (Thanks, EricaP.)
What was the harm? The well documented fear, loathing, sexual dysfunction, and self hatred that abuse survivors describe all too well.
Have more questions? Read my posts again (and again). I'm bored, and you're playing the game of pretending not to understand so I'll repeat myself and that in doing so, I'll suddenly decide I'm being inconsistent and will agree with you. I've expressed myself quite well, I'm sure. If you don't understand, try harder, or let it rest.
274
@270, let's say the adult masturbated to the photograph -- or to a virtual porn depiction -- of said three-year-old, so that not only there was no harm, but also there was no child involved. Would you still think this was a despicable act?
That's what I thought. And that's my point: this is culture speaking, not nature or reason. You'd find it despicable even if no child was even involved. It's the symbolism, not the reality, that you find despicable.
To cite George Orwell again, some people can only think: "two legs bad, four legs good."
That's what I thought. And that's my point: this is culture speaking, not nature or reason. You'd find it despicable even if no child was even involved. It's the symbolism, not the reality, that you find despicable.
To cite George Orwell again, some people can only think: "two legs bad, four legs good."
275
@272 Please consider the possibility that he told you about his suicidal thoughts to keep you from reporting him. And consider that he may have used the same tactic to keep boys from reporting him to their parents. He sounds very manipulative. I would not trust him when he tells you that he had not abused anyone.
276
Yes, Erica, you're right. I have considered that. I don't think he's been all that honest with me about a lot of things over the years.
277
@271, why do you discuss my bullet points separately, when my point was the danger of combining the three?
If a child were in a position of authority over an adult (say, an eight-year-old prince over his adult servant), and if the servant were terrified and thus never aroused, then I could imagine that their sex play would not be detrimental to the prince. (Though it might damage the servant.)
If a child were in a position of authority over an adult (say, an eight-year-old prince over his adult servant), and if the servant were terrified and thus never aroused, then I could imagine that their sex play would not be detrimental to the prince. (Though it might damage the servant.)
278
@Crinoline, who wrote:
And you don't think that this implies something? To a scientist, this is an immediate red flag. 'Because it does' is never a satisfactory answer.
And if the child doesn't pick the "vibe" (whatever it is), then there is no harm? Would a "vibe-erasor" dispel the harm, like an aerosol spray dispelling bad odors in the bathroom?
I think you'll say: no it wouldn't. The situation would still cause harm, it would still be despicable.
Which to me is the textbook definition of a cultural event. To believe that a child who wasn't harmed in any phyiscal way, who didn't even pick the "vibes", who doesn't even know what an erection is or means, would still be harmed by seeing one... cannot be explained in any other way.
If you'd still believe in that even if, years and decades after the fact, there still was no sign of "fear, loathing, sexual dysfunction, and self hatred that abuse survivors describe all too well" in the girl... then believing in harm in this case would be tantamount to believing in ghosts.
I don't have doubts about your position, Crinoline. I am disagreeing with it, and I'm trying to give you reasons why disagreeing with your opinion is legitimate and logical. That's all.
I'm not repeating anything. I'm not pretending not to understand. I've read and re-read your posts; they still don't address the point I raise.
Sorry if bored you. I hope you'll find more interesting things than me to read, here and elsewhere.
Why? Because it does.
How? I don't know, but it does.
And you don't think that this implies something? To a scientist, this is an immediate red flag. 'Because it does' is never a satisfactory answer.
I think EricaP used the term "vibe," and that works for me. (Thanks, EricaP.)
And if the child doesn't pick the "vibe" (whatever it is), then there is no harm? Would a "vibe-erasor" dispel the harm, like an aerosol spray dispelling bad odors in the bathroom?
I think you'll say: no it wouldn't. The situation would still cause harm, it would still be despicable.
Which to me is the textbook definition of a cultural event. To believe that a child who wasn't harmed in any phyiscal way, who didn't even pick the "vibes", who doesn't even know what an erection is or means, would still be harmed by seeing one... cannot be explained in any other way.
If you'd still believe in that even if, years and decades after the fact, there still was no sign of "fear, loathing, sexual dysfunction, and self hatred that abuse survivors describe all too well" in the girl... then believing in harm in this case would be tantamount to believing in ghosts.
I don't have doubts about your position, Crinoline. I am disagreeing with it, and I'm trying to give you reasons why disagreeing with your opinion is legitimate and logical. That's all.
I'm not repeating anything. I'm not pretending not to understand. I've read and re-read your posts; they still don't address the point I raise.
Sorry if bored you. I hope you'll find more interesting things than me to read, here and elsewhere.
279
Also, I haven't seen you tackle the difference between assent and consent raised by Canadian Nurse in the other thread:
Kids can assent to things their guardians have deemed safe.
Kids cannot consent to anything, because they do not understand the risks, benefits, likelihoods and probabilities.
Would you agree that any sex between adults and children should be thoroughly supervised by an adult outside party?
Kids can assent to things their guardians have deemed safe.
Kids cannot consent to anything, because they do not understand the risks, benefits, likelihoods and probabilities.
Would you agree that any sex between adults and children should be thoroughly supervised by an adult outside party?
280
In regards to all this, "All practitioners of X were abused/No, I am a practitioner of X and I was not abused . . ." discussion:
I was sexually abused as a child, and it is incredibly hurtful for people to act like my sexual desires are invalid because of my sexual abuse. Let's pretend for a moment that I liked X, and that my liking of X could be directly linked to my sexual abuse. So the fuck what? I mean, if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to want to help others," people would likely support this. But if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to like being spanked," people would gasp in horror. They would insist that this was proof that my desire to be spanked was invalid, and they would demand that I go and work to excise the desire to be spanked. And that's terrible. I should not be denied my sexual agency because my sexual agency was denied as a child.
I was sexually abused as a child, and it is incredibly hurtful for people to act like my sexual desires are invalid because of my sexual abuse. Let's pretend for a moment that I liked X, and that my liking of X could be directly linked to my sexual abuse. So the fuck what? I mean, if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to want to help others," people would likely support this. But if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to like being spanked," people would gasp in horror. They would insist that this was proof that my desire to be spanked was invalid, and they would demand that I go and work to excise the desire to be spanked. And that's terrible. I should not be denied my sexual agency because my sexual agency was denied as a child.
281
To clarify: sports are all done in public.
In your imagined world of non-harmful sex acts between children and adults -- would that also be done in public?
In your imagined world of non-harmful sex acts between children and adults -- would that also be done in public?
282
Oops, I mean to hit "save changes" and I seem to have hit "submit" instead. Here is my slightly edited post:
In regards to all this, "All practitioners of X were abused/No, I am a practitioner of X and I was not abused . . ." discussion:
I was sexually abused as a child, and it is incredibly hurtful for people to act like my sexual desires are invalid because of my sexual abuse. Let's pretend for a moment that I liked to be spanked, and that my liking of spanking could be directly linked to my sexual abuse. So the fuck what? I mean, if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to want to help others," people would likely support this. But if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to like being spanked," people would gasp in horror. They would insist that this was proof that my desire to be spanked was invalid, and they would demand that I go and work to excise the desire to be spanked. And that's terrible. I should not be denied my sexual agency because my sexual agency was denied as a child.
In regards to all this, "All practitioners of X were abused/No, I am a practitioner of X and I was not abused . . ." discussion:
I was sexually abused as a child, and it is incredibly hurtful for people to act like my sexual desires are invalid because of my sexual abuse. Let's pretend for a moment that I liked to be spanked, and that my liking of spanking could be directly linked to my sexual abuse. So the fuck what? I mean, if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to want to help others," people would likely support this. But if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to like being spanked," people would gasp in horror. They would insist that this was proof that my desire to be spanked was invalid, and they would demand that I go and work to excise the desire to be spanked. And that's terrible. I should not be denied my sexual agency because my sexual agency was denied as a child.
283
And what about my question @268 about prison?
Do you think that we should consider the possibility of fun, delightful sex acts between powerful prisoners and weak prisoners?
Why aren't you interested in discussing that? Why are you so focused on children, when the same question arises for anyone who is (temporarily) powerless.
Do you think that we should consider the possibility of fun, delightful sex acts between powerful prisoners and weak prisoners?
Why aren't you interested in discussing that? Why are you so focused on children, when the same question arises for anyone who is (temporarily) powerless.
284
@PRD, if he commits suicide because this (assuming you did tell him you were on his side, and you could understand him), then this is certainly not your fault. Committing suicide at this point would be a sign of some sort of delusion or self-hatred, some psychological problem he simply wasn't ready to face and fight against. And, I repeat: it wouldn't be your fault.
A man who doesn't have much else in his life other than the boy-scouts does sound odd. It makes one think of obsession, anti-social impulses, complexes, and worse things. Plus the rope and hanging play you mentioned... It actually makes it sound worse than in your first description. He may indeed have serious problems -- even if he has never harmed any child.
If no harm is being done, then he can make the case with a reasonable therapist (and do try to find one that is OK with "Gold-star pedophiles" and won't immediately condemn him as a pervert, but try to work with him so that no harm is done to any child). If for no other reason, at least so that he tries to get other things into his life, to make it more varied, more meaningful, less centered on the boy scouts and the "alcoholic in a brewery" situation you so aptly described.
He did put you in a tight spot. I wonder why he confessed to you. Isn't it perhaps a sign that he is asking for help -- that he does want someone to stop him?
A man who doesn't have much else in his life other than the boy-scouts does sound odd. It makes one think of obsession, anti-social impulses, complexes, and worse things. Plus the rope and hanging play you mentioned... It actually makes it sound worse than in your first description. He may indeed have serious problems -- even if he has never harmed any child.
If no harm is being done, then he can make the case with a reasonable therapist (and do try to find one that is OK with "Gold-star pedophiles" and won't immediately condemn him as a pervert, but try to work with him so that no harm is done to any child). If for no other reason, at least so that he tries to get other things into his life, to make it more varied, more meaningful, less centered on the boy scouts and the "alcoholic in a brewery" situation you so aptly described.
He did put you in a tight spot. I wonder why he confessed to you. Isn't it perhaps a sign that he is asking for help -- that he does want someone to stop him?
285
@ankylosaur
I have not read much of what you have said because I fear that if I do, I will start frothing. However, I will share a bit about my sexual abuse in hopes that maybe you can begin to understand.
My father sexually abused me from my earliest memories. I have no recollection of a time before the abuse started. Given this starting point, I grew up believing that what was going on was normal. I also assented to and instigated some of it (as hard as that is for me to say) because I knew it was a way to garner my father's affections and assuage his anger. No one picked up on what was going on either, undoubtedly because we were of reasonable social standing and I was both well behaved and able to get very good grades in school. If you had looked at me as a child, you likely would have cited me as an example of your point.
But it was all a lie. I broke off all contact with my father at 16 because I had stopped functioning. By 18, I was severely depressed to the point of near suicide, and I had PTSD. I have severe anxiety attacks around men and have not managed to have anything approaching a reasonable romantic relationship.
When someone says, "Well, how do we KNOW it hurts kids?" all I want to do is scream, "FUCK YOU, YOU GOD DAMNED MONSTERS! How dare you say that what he did wasn't hurtful? How dare you ask how we know that I was harmed? How dare you minimize the trauma I have suffered, and say it wasn't real?"
I don't know if that is fair, but I must admit that I am passed caring very much. I have had enough with people believe that they get to decide if my suffering is justified.
I have not read much of what you have said because I fear that if I do, I will start frothing. However, I will share a bit about my sexual abuse in hopes that maybe you can begin to understand.
My father sexually abused me from my earliest memories. I have no recollection of a time before the abuse started. Given this starting point, I grew up believing that what was going on was normal. I also assented to and instigated some of it (as hard as that is for me to say) because I knew it was a way to garner my father's affections and assuage his anger. No one picked up on what was going on either, undoubtedly because we were of reasonable social standing and I was both well behaved and able to get very good grades in school. If you had looked at me as a child, you likely would have cited me as an example of your point.
But it was all a lie. I broke off all contact with my father at 16 because I had stopped functioning. By 18, I was severely depressed to the point of near suicide, and I had PTSD. I have severe anxiety attacks around men and have not managed to have anything approaching a reasonable romantic relationship.
When someone says, "Well, how do we KNOW it hurts kids?" all I want to do is scream, "FUCK YOU, YOU GOD DAMNED MONSTERS! How dare you say that what he did wasn't hurtful? How dare you ask how we know that I was harmed? How dare you minimize the trauma I have suffered, and say it wasn't real?"
I don't know if that is fair, but I must admit that I am passed caring very much. I have had enough with people believe that they get to decide if my suffering is justified.
286
@277(EricaP), because the point was that, since each of the three bullet points can be individually solved, there is no inherent need for them to co-occur. (See unicorn's case above.) It may happen to be that child + adult sex can occur without (a) uncontrollable arousal and without (b) the power imbalance warping the game (and, let's not forget: without harm being done). (The criminalization part is a social problem outside the situation itself; as I said, I hope cases with a+b+no harm do escape the law.)
287
@287, Lorran, I IN NO WAY think your suffering is unjustified. Please don't read that into my words. I am truly, genuinely sorry for what happened to you, and I think I can understand since I myself was abused and had to struggle with it. I hope you have been successful in dealing with the consequences of this horrible abuse, and that you'll go on growing and freeing yourself from them.
It's simply that I'm talking about something else. Not your case, but something else altogether.
Believe me, I DO think you're more than entitled to thinking that your suffering is justified. It is.
It's simply that I'm talking about something else. Not your case, but something else altogether.
Believe me, I DO think you're more than entitled to thinking that your suffering is justified. It is.
288
@283/268(EricaP) -- I had really missed that one post. Thanks for pointing it out to me! Here's my reaction.
Yes, there are lots of other topics -- as Dan's column itself tirelessly reminds us. Honor killings? I'm against, because there is always harm (death). (Of course, if the wife thinks she should be killed, since I think people do have a right to suicide, then it would be OK -- but I would still be totally against a society that does teach people they should want to be killed under such circumstances. I suppose here the point is how much harm construal a certain society should be allowed to make.).
In this case, the obvious harm is death, which you cannot escape in an honor killing (unlike the child+ADULT sex case).
As for prison rape: of course the equation "powerful-prisoner + weak-prisoner + sex = evil" doesn't always hold. If both prisoners are willing participants, if nobody is harmed, physicially, emotionally, or otherwise, then why should there be a problem?
This is the same as boss-secretary sex in the work place. Given the power imbalance, bosses and secretaries are encouraged not to have relationships, and I can see why. But surely nobody things that every (or even most) cases of boss+secretary sex resulted in harm or damage to the secreatry (or even to the boss)? Hell, I know married people who started their relationship like that. I could similarly imagine the two prisoners you mentioned, despite their power imbalance, also starting a good relationship and even getting married (assuming gay marriage will become legal in time for them to get married).
Again, assuming that no harm was done.
Power imbalances do create a problem. They make good relationships harder. But by no means do they make them impossible. They're like many other problems -- a big age or economic difference, or living in different countries, or... They make relationships harder, but not impossible.
I think that's the point to me, EricaP. I think that, in a situation, if there was no harm, then there was no harm. It's pointless to claim that "there was harm" if there verifiably wasn't; it's like assuming that harm is some metaphysical thing that exists even when it doesn't.
More...
Yes, there are lots of other topics -- as Dan's column itself tirelessly reminds us. Honor killings? I'm against, because there is always harm (death). (Of course, if the wife thinks she should be killed, since I think people do have a right to suicide, then it would be OK -- but I would still be totally against a society that does teach people they should want to be killed under such circumstances. I suppose here the point is how much harm construal a certain society should be allowed to make.).
In this case, the obvious harm is death, which you cannot escape in an honor killing (unlike the child+ADULT sex case).
As for prison rape: of course the equation "powerful-prisoner + weak-prisoner + sex = evil" doesn't always hold. If both prisoners are willing participants, if nobody is harmed, physicially, emotionally, or otherwise, then why should there be a problem?
This is the same as boss-secretary sex in the work place. Given the power imbalance, bosses and secretaries are encouraged not to have relationships, and I can see why. But surely nobody things that every (or even most) cases of boss+secretary sex resulted in harm or damage to the secreatry (or even to the boss)? Hell, I know married people who started their relationship like that. I could similarly imagine the two prisoners you mentioned, despite their power imbalance, also starting a good relationship and even getting married (assuming gay marriage will become legal in time for them to get married).
Again, assuming that no harm was done.
Power imbalances do create a problem. They make good relationships harder. But by no means do they make them impossible. They're like many other problems -- a big age or economic difference, or living in different countries, or... They make relationships harder, but not impossible.
I think that's the point to me, EricaP. I think that, in a situation, if there was no harm, then there was no harm. It's pointless to claim that "there was harm" if there verifiably wasn't; it's like assuming that harm is some metaphysical thing that exists even when it doesn't.
289
@281, sports are not always done in public (I often played soccer with other boys in the backyard without anybody watching), but I do agree they often are, and that surveillance of children's activities is on the increase.
So: yes, I think there should be surveillance of child+ADULT sex. If not a third person present, then maybe recording.
At the very least, I'd claim that any child+ADULT sex act should have the OK of some other adult -- mother, father, responsible caretaker, SOMEONE who is adult and can, as an adult, verify that the child in question (who cannot do the verification, for obvious reasons) is indeed not being harmed.
It's a bit like Dan's rule for dating people you meet online: for safety reasons, meet him/her in a public place and always tell someone else where you're going and what you'll be doing afterwards so they can check on you.
So: yes, I think there should be surveillance of child+ADULT sex. If not a third person present, then maybe recording.
At the very least, I'd claim that any child+ADULT sex act should have the OK of some other adult -- mother, father, responsible caretaker, SOMEONE who is adult and can, as an adult, verify that the child in question (who cannot do the verification, for obvious reasons) is indeed not being harmed.
It's a bit like Dan's rule for dating people you meet online: for safety reasons, meet him/her in a public place and always tell someone else where you're going and what you'll be doing afterwards so they can check on you.
290
@EricaP, I think a summary of my position is: It's all about harm. To make me see that something is bad and shouldn't be done, all you have to do is show that there is necessary harm. (Or, if you're talking about a specific situation, that harm has occurred there).
To make a different comparsion, let me now for a change ask you a question.
Hunter, as we know, keeps claiming that your 24/7 D/s relationship with your husband is not really a happy one; that your husband is manipulating and therefore harming you. You claim you aren't. He'd say you're delusional (as you accused me of being in the other thread) when you say that you are actually quite happy and fulfilled with your open marriage and with your submission, and that things are just fine.
I believe you, because I believe in the possibility of this situation being true, and I have no reason to doubt your word. This doesn't mean I don't realize that it involves serious risks -- risks that go beyond normal vanilla relationships. D/s and BDSM in general do carry a higher risk of real (not sexy) abuse that people have to look out for -- which explains some of the characteristics of most good BDSM communities (very careful screening to eliminate the manipulative assholes, very strong emphasis on safe-sane-consensual play, etc.).
Now, not everybody agrees with me and you. Even here on SLOG. Because there is a clear risk, some people even think (wrongly in my opinion) that it's too dangerous, nobody should ever engage in them. Some think BDSMers should de-program themselves because 'abuse is abuse is abuse, even if it's sexy and hot' (see wendykh).
They -- Hunter, wendykh, others -- might claim: the equation "person+person+BDSM = evil" holds no matter the circusmtances, no matter how much negotition, rules, safewords, etc. there are. It's always bad, it always de-humanizes you, non-BDSM is always better and healthier than BDSM. Maybe some people even think this should be criminalized, and people who engage in BDSM, especially the more 'spectacular' ones (full body bondage, electricity play, etc.) should be forced into therapy to control their urges.
How do you feel about such people, and such ideas?
More...
To make a different comparsion, let me now for a change ask you a question.
Hunter, as we know, keeps claiming that your 24/7 D/s relationship with your husband is not really a happy one; that your husband is manipulating and therefore harming you. You claim you aren't. He'd say you're delusional (as you accused me of being in the other thread) when you say that you are actually quite happy and fulfilled with your open marriage and with your submission, and that things are just fine.
I believe you, because I believe in the possibility of this situation being true, and I have no reason to doubt your word. This doesn't mean I don't realize that it involves serious risks -- risks that go beyond normal vanilla relationships. D/s and BDSM in general do carry a higher risk of real (not sexy) abuse that people have to look out for -- which explains some of the characteristics of most good BDSM communities (very careful screening to eliminate the manipulative assholes, very strong emphasis on safe-sane-consensual play, etc.).
Now, not everybody agrees with me and you. Even here on SLOG. Because there is a clear risk, some people even think (wrongly in my opinion) that it's too dangerous, nobody should ever engage in them. Some think BDSMers should de-program themselves because 'abuse is abuse is abuse, even if it's sexy and hot' (see wendykh).
They -- Hunter, wendykh, others -- might claim: the equation "person+person+BDSM = evil" holds no matter the circusmtances, no matter how much negotition, rules, safewords, etc. there are. It's always bad, it always de-humanizes you, non-BDSM is always better and healthier than BDSM. Maybe some people even think this should be criminalized, and people who engage in BDSM, especially the more 'spectacular' ones (full body bondage, electricity play, etc.) should be forced into therapy to control their urges.
How do you feel about such people, and such ideas?
291
@290, I don't out myself, because I think that I still live in that society. Those people are welcome to their ideas, but I'm glad I live at a time when the law says that mentally stable adults can consent to BDSM, and where I am considered to be a mentally stable adult.
Do you want to live in a society where the law says children can assent to oral sex with adults, assuming that their parent/guardian approves of the idea and will supervise?
Do you want to live in a society where the law says children can assent to oral sex with adults, assuming that their parent/guardian approves of the idea and will supervise?
292
How do we tell the difference between someone who will look back on this event with horror (285), and someone who will look back with pleasure (239), given that they both said at the time that they liked it?
How are we to predict the harm?
How are we to predict the harm?
293
@286 "It may happen to be that child + adult sex can occur without (a) uncontrollable arousal and without (b) the power imbalance warping the game (and, let's not forget: without harm being done)."
Unicorn's case was not one of no arousal and no power imbalance. That case could just as easily have lead to bleeding, damage, and harm. Unicorn says she lost her virginity at 5 -- you're going to tell me that her 20 year old abuser was in control of his arousal & the power imbalance enough that he was encouraging her to let him know about any pain or emotional uncertainty she experienced?
And I like how you change arousal to "uncontrollable arousal". Adults often do things because of arousal they regret later. Not "uncontrollable arousal," just regular arousal. If you haven't experienced any regret about anything you ever did because of arousal, I bet you're in the minority.
Unicorn's case was not one of no arousal and no power imbalance. That case could just as easily have lead to bleeding, damage, and harm. Unicorn says she lost her virginity at 5 -- you're going to tell me that her 20 year old abuser was in control of his arousal & the power imbalance enough that he was encouraging her to let him know about any pain or emotional uncertainty she experienced?
And I like how you change arousal to "uncontrollable arousal". Adults often do things because of arousal they regret later. Not "uncontrollable arousal," just regular arousal. If you haven't experienced any regret about anything you ever did because of arousal, I bet you're in the minority.
294
But I'm glad to hear that any sex between you and a child would be authorized by the child's parents/guardian, and filmed for later viewing by the relevant authorities.
What would your wife think about this thread, if I may be so bold? Does she know what you have spent the day defending?
What would your wife think about this thread, if I may be so bold? Does she know what you have spent the day defending?
295
If you could work behind the scenes to move us toward a society where children could assent to sex with anyone if an outside guardian consented, would you move us in that direction?
297
@ Ankylosaur:
It was only when I confronted my friend point blank with: "Are you having sex with kids?" that he told me he was a "boy lover" (pedophile). I am quite sure he would NEVER have said anything otherwise. He thinks this is okay - and angry that society makes pariahs of those like himself -- so I am doubtful he was making a plea for help. But who knows about his subconscious?
He is even odder than I can get into here. After 35 years, I've come to see him as a veritable stew of unresolved family/father issues, contradictions in values, repressed desires, and hypocrisies. He is not a bad person, though. He is kind and generous. I have tried very hard to be supportive and not to be judgmental.
He is very dogmatic about the man/boy love thing though. He is not going to willingly go into counseling because I am concerned about kids he says he is not messing with. Stronger measures will need to employed. **sigh**
It was only when I confronted my friend point blank with: "Are you having sex with kids?" that he told me he was a "boy lover" (pedophile). I am quite sure he would NEVER have said anything otherwise. He thinks this is okay - and angry that society makes pariahs of those like himself -- so I am doubtful he was making a plea for help. But who knows about his subconscious?
He is even odder than I can get into here. After 35 years, I've come to see him as a veritable stew of unresolved family/father issues, contradictions in values, repressed desires, and hypocrisies. He is not a bad person, though. He is kind and generous. I have tried very hard to be supportive and not to be judgmental.
He is very dogmatic about the man/boy love thing though. He is not going to willingly go into counseling because I am concerned about kids he says he is not messing with. Stronger measures will need to employed. **sigh**
298
@ankylosaur
I don't know how you can differentiate my experience with the experience you are talking about. I was not taught that what my father was doing was wrong, so it wasn't that the cultural ban against it caused my problems. My father did not physically injure me in any way. I assented to and instigated some of what he did. If someone had asked me if I had wanted it, I would have said yes and defended what we were doing. Everyone agreed that I was startlingly mature for my age. I got good grades. I behaved well. I felt and professed a deep love for him. It sounds to me like I fit your definition of a possibly healthy adult/child sexual relationship to a T, except that it wounded me beyond expression.
None of the aforementioned criterion stopped the whole situation from warping me to a degree that almost killed me. I was a child, and thus unequipped to stop his manipulation. As soon as I got old enough to sort out what was going on to some degree (that he wasn't giving me a choice, that I didn't really want to be doing it, that it was making me unable to relate to other people), I made it stop, but by then the damage was already done.
In the end, I didn't figure out that what he was doing was wrong because anyone told me so, I figured it out because it broke me. I learned it was wrong because I looked at the results. But if results aren't enough, and if you are talking about something other than what my relationship with my father looked like, then perhaps you can explain how you propose that we tell the difference between your hypothetical situation and my real life one.
I don't know how you can differentiate my experience with the experience you are talking about. I was not taught that what my father was doing was wrong, so it wasn't that the cultural ban against it caused my problems. My father did not physically injure me in any way. I assented to and instigated some of what he did. If someone had asked me if I had wanted it, I would have said yes and defended what we were doing. Everyone agreed that I was startlingly mature for my age. I got good grades. I behaved well. I felt and professed a deep love for him. It sounds to me like I fit your definition of a possibly healthy adult/child sexual relationship to a T, except that it wounded me beyond expression.
None of the aforementioned criterion stopped the whole situation from warping me to a degree that almost killed me. I was a child, and thus unequipped to stop his manipulation. As soon as I got old enough to sort out what was going on to some degree (that he wasn't giving me a choice, that I didn't really want to be doing it, that it was making me unable to relate to other people), I made it stop, but by then the damage was already done.
In the end, I didn't figure out that what he was doing was wrong because anyone told me so, I figured it out because it broke me. I learned it was wrong because I looked at the results. But if results aren't enough, and if you are talking about something other than what my relationship with my father looked like, then perhaps you can explain how you propose that we tell the difference between your hypothetical situation and my real life one.
299
Could someone please post some kind of link to this "other thread" everyone keeps talking about??
301
@274 ankylosaur
Warning for graphic content:
Why don't you come right out an answer my question directly and instead of dancing around the perimeter? Do you think it is wrong for an adult male to pleasure himself to orgasm with a 3 month old infant in a way that does not hurt the infant (such as orally)?
Warning for graphic content:
Why don't you come right out an answer my question directly and instead of dancing around the perimeter? Do you think it is wrong for an adult male to pleasure himself to orgasm with a 3 month old infant in a way that does not hurt the infant (such as orally)?
302
@301, OK, Vertex.
If there is absolutely no harm for the infant, neither physical nor psychological (no long-time nightmares, no PTSD, no nothing);
then yes, I think it would be all right for an adult to pleasure himself (or herself) to orgasm with a 3 month old infant.
To me, it's all about harm. No harm means no harm. Isn't that simple enough? If an action harms no one, it shouldn't be punished.
Now it's your turn. Answer me one question: if indeed there is no harm (as you said) to the child, isn't it the case that the problem you see in the situation is simply socio-culturally construed? If no, then what is it?
If there is absolutely no harm for the infant, neither physical nor psychological (no long-time nightmares, no PTSD, no nothing);
then yes, I think it would be all right for an adult to pleasure himself (or herself) to orgasm with a 3 month old infant.
To me, it's all about harm. No harm means no harm. Isn't that simple enough? If an action harms no one, it shouldn't be punished.
Now it's your turn. Answer me one question: if indeed there is no harm (as you said) to the child, isn't it the case that the problem you see in the situation is simply socio-culturally construed? If no, then what is it?
303
Sorry to say this but.... Peodophiles are master manipulators, ironically, as children can also be, but with much better arguments and debating skills, and conversely those "debating" the issue on their terms are suckers. You all uppity honkies are being suckered. I love you, but you're being played. You all learned to critically analyze and argue from roughly the same white cheese crowd in university, yeah yeah maybe some of you are ghetto, but you argue in a bubble of reality. Everything is theoretical, and no one is addressing the real issue. Someone gets something from someone else, and hustles them to get it, the kind of hustler yu are depends on your hustle. This seems to be past you all.
Ank reasons like a peodophile, and is constantly pushing any argument against child molestation back on its heels. Our (very worthy) love for openess and honest debate has been deliberately corrupted and taken advantage of. Much like PRD's friend has used his friendship against his friend, ANK uses this "communities" ways against it. Was i the only one waiting for the "our fight is as just as that of the homosexuals" argument ?I hope not ! Everyone knew once ANK got desperate enough, it would be used, and here no less... WHY DOES THIS PERSON MAKE THIS ARGUMENT, rather than another (because he thinks he can sucker you all with it) WHY USE IT AT ALL ? (because he was desperate, loosing the battle, and getting uncomfortably close to having to admit the vile dog he is to himself)
The pedophile uses the childs openness against them in much the same way.
There is no argument, no reason, no moral consideration and no form of degradation to a child relevant enough to dissuade the pedophile. Ever. They work their way into positions of power and TRUST not to help the child, but to help themselves. Priests, teachers, coaches... Boy scout leaders. The children that PRD's "friend" mentors... They are being groomed by someone who is doing their "best" for the children, taking his time, being a loving and protective and patient and on and on and on and on... Etc. etc...
is he doing this for himself or the child ?
Is he there to teach scouting, and "happens" to stumble I to this mutually fulfilling relationship with an 8 year old boy, or is he just a predator ? Is the wolf in your field to eat, or is she there to fulfill the majestic cycle of life etc etc ? Well... a bit of both actually, but if you want to protect the life around you, you and yours there's no point in arguing it. I suggest that everyone knows that he (the pedophile) instead there simply to wrangle sexual gratification from a child any way he can. Why not hang out at a toy store and hit on kids ? Because a father like me would report you to the police, and if I could get away with it and my family weren't around I'd really hurt you quite badly.
Why become a scoutmaster, teacher, coach etc ? Because society programs us to trust them. Why argue that your sexuality is as misunderstood as the homosexual ? Because you have an audience that is sensetive and aware of the abuse that the homosexual has endured. They want sympathy, they have a need to be the victim, seen as helpless, bullied, misunderstood in order to get you to passivly facilitate their perversion, and convince you that you and yours are not the victim, they are. They are monsters, here's one for all you college kids, like Dracula they need your weakness, indecision or reluctance to go against manners to get you to invite them in.
You all got tricked into debating whether a man who cant wash his kids without masterbating is wrong or right... (sheeeeeiit) Their arguments are the tip of the wedge, and are not being recognized as being as dangerous as they are. They will do what it takes to earn enough trust to use against their victims and their families with less guilt than you nice people would show for telling them like it is unfortunately... It starts with guys like ANK hustling you all and not getting called out for it. Sorry to say...
More...
Ank reasons like a peodophile, and is constantly pushing any argument against child molestation back on its heels. Our (very worthy) love for openess and honest debate has been deliberately corrupted and taken advantage of. Much like PRD's friend has used his friendship against his friend, ANK uses this "communities" ways against it. Was i the only one waiting for the "our fight is as just as that of the homosexuals" argument ?I hope not ! Everyone knew once ANK got desperate enough, it would be used, and here no less... WHY DOES THIS PERSON MAKE THIS ARGUMENT, rather than another (because he thinks he can sucker you all with it) WHY USE IT AT ALL ? (because he was desperate, loosing the battle, and getting uncomfortably close to having to admit the vile dog he is to himself)
The pedophile uses the childs openness against them in much the same way.
There is no argument, no reason, no moral consideration and no form of degradation to a child relevant enough to dissuade the pedophile. Ever. They work their way into positions of power and TRUST not to help the child, but to help themselves. Priests, teachers, coaches... Boy scout leaders. The children that PRD's "friend" mentors... They are being groomed by someone who is doing their "best" for the children, taking his time, being a loving and protective and patient and on and on and on and on... Etc. etc...
is he doing this for himself or the child ?
Is he there to teach scouting, and "happens" to stumble I to this mutually fulfilling relationship with an 8 year old boy, or is he just a predator ? Is the wolf in your field to eat, or is she there to fulfill the majestic cycle of life etc etc ? Well... a bit of both actually, but if you want to protect the life around you, you and yours there's no point in arguing it. I suggest that everyone knows that he (the pedophile) instead there simply to wrangle sexual gratification from a child any way he can. Why not hang out at a toy store and hit on kids ? Because a father like me would report you to the police, and if I could get away with it and my family weren't around I'd really hurt you quite badly.
Why become a scoutmaster, teacher, coach etc ? Because society programs us to trust them. Why argue that your sexuality is as misunderstood as the homosexual ? Because you have an audience that is sensetive and aware of the abuse that the homosexual has endured. They want sympathy, they have a need to be the victim, seen as helpless, bullied, misunderstood in order to get you to passivly facilitate their perversion, and convince you that you and yours are not the victim, they are. They are monsters, here's one for all you college kids, like Dracula they need your weakness, indecision or reluctance to go against manners to get you to invite them in.
You all got tricked into debating whether a man who cant wash his kids without masterbating is wrong or right... (sheeeeeiit) Their arguments are the tip of the wedge, and are not being recognized as being as dangerous as they are. They will do what it takes to earn enough trust to use against their victims and their families with less guilt than you nice people would show for telling them like it is unfortunately... It starts with guys like ANK hustling you all and not getting called out for it. Sorry to say...
304
I don't know what the Sam hill it is but here's one for you... If you can't see the harm to the child no matter what, what does that make you ? What are you ? In that situation, with a child and you thing out... What the hell are you Ank ? You're a monster.
305
@300
My point remains that if you had asked me if he was forcing me when it was happening, if you had asked me if he was denying me choice, I would have said no. I was just WRONG. I didn't understand that I was doing it because I needed him, because I was a child, because I was dependent on his love, approval, and desires. It took me years to figure out that I did it because if I didn't, he got angry and withdrew. It took me years to realize that if I wanted his attention, I had to perform. He wasn't holding me down, he wasn't threatening to hurt me or anyone else, he wasn't doing anything that I identified as force until much later. His manipulation was emotional and mental in a way I couldn't possibly identify as a child. I didn't even begin to sort it out until my mid-teens.
How do you propose that we ferret this all out given that we're talking about one of the participants being mentally incomplete?
My point remains that if you had asked me if he was forcing me when it was happening, if you had asked me if he was denying me choice, I would have said no. I was just WRONG. I didn't understand that I was doing it because I needed him, because I was a child, because I was dependent on his love, approval, and desires. It took me years to figure out that I did it because if I didn't, he got angry and withdrew. It took me years to realize that if I wanted his attention, I had to perform. He wasn't holding me down, he wasn't threatening to hurt me or anyone else, he wasn't doing anything that I identified as force until much later. His manipulation was emotional and mental in a way I couldn't possibly identify as a child. I didn't even begin to sort it out until my mid-teens.
How do you propose that we ferret this all out given that we're talking about one of the participants being mentally incomplete?
306
Also, in some ways the abuse did feel good. It made me feel important, loved, special, worthwhile, connected, and like an adult. That’s why I initiated some of it. I wanted to be important, loved, special, connected, and like an adult. I didn’t even connect the fallout of what was happening to me (my severe isolation from other children due to an inability to relate to them, highly sexualized play that generally included playacting rape scenarios, constant nervousness, constantly feeling sick, heightened startle reflex) to what he was doing to what he was doing to me. I thought all those bad things that were going on inside of me were because I was FLAWED in some way, not because I was being abused. To me, my abuse and my problems were completely separate. On the one hand, I was perverse. On the other, what happened with my father. And if you had asked me about what was going on, I would have lied about it. I know this, because my sister and I took great pains to hide it from my mother. And it wasn’t because my father told us to lie; he did not. It was because we both felt that our relationship with our father was fine, and that our problems (which I at least believed to be unrelated to what he was doing to us) needed to be hidden so people wouldn’t reject us. Basically, I had two lines of thought: “What my father is doing is fine,” and “I am a terrible, sick child, and if anyone finds out, they won’t love/like/accept me anymore.”
Ah, this all makes me so sad to think about.
Ah, this all makes me so sad to think about.
307
@298(Lorran), no, I think you don't fit my description. And here is my opinion why (which you can take with a grain of salt if you wish).
(First of all let me say that I cannot presume to know everything about your situation, so please take any claims made here as hypothetical. Feel free to correct me and add any futher points you think are relevant and I didn't consider.)
Your reaction (breaking off at 16, and suffering from clear PTSD symptoms later on) indicates that you were simply wrong in believing that your relationship with your father was not harming you. It was. Harm doesn't suddenly "materialize" in your head when you turn 16; it was already happening beforehand. Your father was doing it wrong, and from the very beginnning.
The fact that you thought everything was OK means you were rationalizing -- not spontaneously, but probably instigated by your father. He probably had some narrative to himself that he communicated to you and that you accepted unconditionally.
(Have you perhaps read Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov? It describes a situation that illustrates what I'm talking about. In the book, the narrator, who has a relationship with a little 12(I think)-year-old girl, even succeeds in convincing himself, for a while, that it's all "not his fault".)
At some point, however, (I suspect), the difference between the narrative that the two of you shared and reality slowly became apparent. As you matured, you realized that you didn't really like what was going on, that you perhaps never had liked it (and when you thought you did, you were just fooling yourself with your father's help). You probably denied it to yourself for a while, precisely for the reasons you suggested ("I felt a deep love for him... I would have defended what I was doing... I instigated some of what he did..."). At that point you simply didn't have yet the "mental weapons" (despite your being startling mature at that age) to realize what was going on, but indeed you were being manipulated, as you very well put it.
Think about what manipulation is, for a moment. Even among adults. When one person manipulates another, s/he changes the perception of reality: s/he fools someone into thinking something is the case (when it isn't), so that s/he can take advantage from it. Whenever manipulation happens, the manipulated participant goes through phases rather similar to yours: at first total belief, then slow realization of strange imperfections and contradictions in the narrative, till it slowly dawns on the person that what was happening was simply not true.
So here's what I think: the damage to you was not caused because an adult was sexually involved with a child, but because an adult manipulated a child, and in a wrong way, and with respect to a topic (sex) that is complicated in our society. How exactly the manipulation occurred, how wrong it was, and its details -- what exactly he made you believe that wasn't true, when it started, how deliberate or not it was, and how exactly it slowly became apparent to you that you were being manipulated, till you figured it out by yourself and broke the relationship -- I can't tell; it's your story. (I wonder if you'd consider writing a book about it, in case you haven't. Not only is this kind of thing often cathartic for people with long stories of strong abuse, but it would make an intersting read and could shed light on many of those details I mentioned).
The situations I'm talking about do not involve manipulation, deception (self- or otherwise), lies, and a failure to detect signs (I assume that you didn't figure things out by yourself in one flash of light, but that the realization happened over time, that you inevitably gave signs, as people usually do when in emotional turmoil, and that your father ignored them).
(You remind me of an article I once read about a man who tried to raise his son as an atheist in a very religious -- Islamic -- country. For a while he succeeded, but it seems his son [the author of the article] actually had some deeply seated religious/spiritual feelings that he suppressed to please his father. This led to a growing feeling of dissonance inside of him, between the beliefs he thought he had because he had learned them from his father, and what his heart really was telling him -- leading also to a complete, and to the father surprising, break of contact. Even though I suspect social influence did play a role, he could certainly claim that it wasn't the most important, since the religion he ended up adopting -- Buddhism -- was not the religion of the country where he lived, and he had as many problems as a Buddhist there as he would have had as an atheist. The crux of the problem was that indeed his father, in his firm belief that what he was doing was better for son, never really bothered to ask what was going on inside of him, and disregarded any signs his son might have given during his own period of emotional turmoil.)
(I would similarly take with a grain of salt the claim that you figured it all out by yourself: social influence is insidious. You certainly were exposed, directly, indirectly, or implicitly, to ideas on incest, sex with children, and abuse; and I'm sure these exposures played a role in your reaction. Cultures are insidious things, and their channels to influence and shape us are legion. But I don't want to take credit from you: you did the job, and you deserve the praise.)
Now, on to what your most important question is: how do I propose to differentiate a case like yours from cases in which there is no manipulation?
It's hard. No doubt about it.
Think about it: even between adults, it's often difficult to determine when someone is truly being manipulated, or not. (As I mentioned above to EricaP, here in SLOG some people -- Hunter, wendykh -- think EricaP is fooling herself by thinking her husband (who is also her Dom in a D/s relationship) is not manipulating and harming her. It's not obvious to them that she isn't, even though she is an adult, is in full possession of her mental faculties, and has repeatedly claimed that she knows what is going on and is OK with it. Despite all that, Hunter, wendykh and mayber others would still probably claim that she is wrong, and should leave her husband and find another life.
It's hard.
I would suggest the following: in an ideal world, any adult who wants to have a sexual relationship with a child should have at least another adult involved, who will check on what is going on and make sure that the child is not being manipulated (since the child cannot do it him/herself). I suppose this was not the case with you -- nobody except you and your daddy knew about what was going on? Your mother was not informed, nor any adult who would be in a position to stop things if there were signs of manipulation?
What kind of signs to look for is an interesting question -- books about stories like yours would probably give better clues than I can come up with. Psychologists also should be consulted. Here are a few guesses: inconsistent or erratic behavior; mood swings; defensiveness; secrecy; an willingness to talk to the other responsible person(s) about (some of the aspects of) how s/he feels when having sex with the adult; any avoidance behavior with some topic related to the relationship (by e.g., turning to an invisible friend, diary, or dolls/soldier toys, getting angry, refusing to answer); depression; self-destructive tendencies (especially if carefully hidden). Look also at any production involving the self: drawings, writins, poetry... (In my case, I spent some time drawing 'desperate' drawings: an eye with a falling tear looking through a keyhole [suggesting a prison]; people broken in half, right through their hearts [suggesting a 'double life']; animals eating themselves, often specifically their own hearts [suggesting self-loathing]).
There probably would be other things, that I can't think of because I'm not really a specialist in psychology.
The bottom line to me is: it's the manipulation that leads to the harm. I think it is possible that such situations as yours -- sex between adult and child -- could happen without manipulation. The data for this is scarce, but available: societies in which it does happen without harm, plus people who tell stories about having having had sex with adults (like unicorn above, or a colleague of mine who is gay and claims he had a relationship with an older guy when he was still a child). I think this possibility deserves investigation; and I would be very interested in studies about it. Specifically, I would like to know how many people went through situations like yours yet did not end up broken, but actually healthy and happy (how often does that happen?); and what exactly the difference was between your situation and theirs (what made it non-manipulative?).
If you allow me one question (feel free not to answer if you don't want; I certainly don't have the right to impose anything on you): when you say that you figured it out because you realized you were broken (again, I think, like Lolita in Nabokov's book), you mentioned the symptoms and the results: it was making you unable to relate to other people. How do you mean -- you couldn't talk or be friends with people, or you couldn't feel romantically involved with them? Was there a feeling that you be 'cheating' on your father by engaging in romantic feelings with others? And, if at least at first you thought 'everything was OK' and 'you wanted it'... when you first started realizing things weren't as good as they thought, did you talk to your father about it? How did he react, and what did he say to you? Did he show any concern for possible harm to you, or did he try to manipulate you away from your budding understanding of the real situation?
More...
(First of all let me say that I cannot presume to know everything about your situation, so please take any claims made here as hypothetical. Feel free to correct me and add any futher points you think are relevant and I didn't consider.)
Your reaction (breaking off at 16, and suffering from clear PTSD symptoms later on) indicates that you were simply wrong in believing that your relationship with your father was not harming you. It was. Harm doesn't suddenly "materialize" in your head when you turn 16; it was already happening beforehand. Your father was doing it wrong, and from the very beginnning.
The fact that you thought everything was OK means you were rationalizing -- not spontaneously, but probably instigated by your father. He probably had some narrative to himself that he communicated to you and that you accepted unconditionally.
(Have you perhaps read Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov? It describes a situation that illustrates what I'm talking about. In the book, the narrator, who has a relationship with a little 12(I think)-year-old girl, even succeeds in convincing himself, for a while, that it's all "not his fault".)
At some point, however, (I suspect), the difference between the narrative that the two of you shared and reality slowly became apparent. As you matured, you realized that you didn't really like what was going on, that you perhaps never had liked it (and when you thought you did, you were just fooling yourself with your father's help). You probably denied it to yourself for a while, precisely for the reasons you suggested ("I felt a deep love for him... I would have defended what I was doing... I instigated some of what he did..."). At that point you simply didn't have yet the "mental weapons" (despite your being startling mature at that age) to realize what was going on, but indeed you were being manipulated, as you very well put it.
Think about what manipulation is, for a moment. Even among adults. When one person manipulates another, s/he changes the perception of reality: s/he fools someone into thinking something is the case (when it isn't), so that s/he can take advantage from it. Whenever manipulation happens, the manipulated participant goes through phases rather similar to yours: at first total belief, then slow realization of strange imperfections and contradictions in the narrative, till it slowly dawns on the person that what was happening was simply not true.
So here's what I think: the damage to you was not caused because an adult was sexually involved with a child, but because an adult manipulated a child, and in a wrong way, and with respect to a topic (sex) that is complicated in our society. How exactly the manipulation occurred, how wrong it was, and its details -- what exactly he made you believe that wasn't true, when it started, how deliberate or not it was, and how exactly it slowly became apparent to you that you were being manipulated, till you figured it out by yourself and broke the relationship -- I can't tell; it's your story. (I wonder if you'd consider writing a book about it, in case you haven't. Not only is this kind of thing often cathartic for people with long stories of strong abuse, but it would make an intersting read and could shed light on many of those details I mentioned).
The situations I'm talking about do not involve manipulation, deception (self- or otherwise), lies, and a failure to detect signs (I assume that you didn't figure things out by yourself in one flash of light, but that the realization happened over time, that you inevitably gave signs, as people usually do when in emotional turmoil, and that your father ignored them).
(You remind me of an article I once read about a man who tried to raise his son as an atheist in a very religious -- Islamic -- country. For a while he succeeded, but it seems his son [the author of the article] actually had some deeply seated religious/spiritual feelings that he suppressed to please his father. This led to a growing feeling of dissonance inside of him, between the beliefs he thought he had because he had learned them from his father, and what his heart really was telling him -- leading also to a complete, and to the father surprising, break of contact. Even though I suspect social influence did play a role, he could certainly claim that it wasn't the most important, since the religion he ended up adopting -- Buddhism -- was not the religion of the country where he lived, and he had as many problems as a Buddhist there as he would have had as an atheist. The crux of the problem was that indeed his father, in his firm belief that what he was doing was better for son, never really bothered to ask what was going on inside of him, and disregarded any signs his son might have given during his own period of emotional turmoil.)
(I would similarly take with a grain of salt the claim that you figured it all out by yourself: social influence is insidious. You certainly were exposed, directly, indirectly, or implicitly, to ideas on incest, sex with children, and abuse; and I'm sure these exposures played a role in your reaction. Cultures are insidious things, and their channels to influence and shape us are legion. But I don't want to take credit from you: you did the job, and you deserve the praise.)
Now, on to what your most important question is: how do I propose to differentiate a case like yours from cases in which there is no manipulation?
It's hard. No doubt about it.
Think about it: even between adults, it's often difficult to determine when someone is truly being manipulated, or not. (As I mentioned above to EricaP, here in SLOG some people -- Hunter, wendykh -- think EricaP is fooling herself by thinking her husband (who is also her Dom in a D/s relationship) is not manipulating and harming her. It's not obvious to them that she isn't, even though she is an adult, is in full possession of her mental faculties, and has repeatedly claimed that she knows what is going on and is OK with it. Despite all that, Hunter, wendykh and mayber others would still probably claim that she is wrong, and should leave her husband and find another life.
It's hard.
I would suggest the following: in an ideal world, any adult who wants to have a sexual relationship with a child should have at least another adult involved, who will check on what is going on and make sure that the child is not being manipulated (since the child cannot do it him/herself). I suppose this was not the case with you -- nobody except you and your daddy knew about what was going on? Your mother was not informed, nor any adult who would be in a position to stop things if there were signs of manipulation?
What kind of signs to look for is an interesting question -- books about stories like yours would probably give better clues than I can come up with. Psychologists also should be consulted. Here are a few guesses: inconsistent or erratic behavior; mood swings; defensiveness; secrecy; an willingness to talk to the other responsible person(s) about (some of the aspects of) how s/he feels when having sex with the adult; any avoidance behavior with some topic related to the relationship (by e.g., turning to an invisible friend, diary, or dolls/soldier toys, getting angry, refusing to answer); depression; self-destructive tendencies (especially if carefully hidden). Look also at any production involving the self: drawings, writins, poetry... (In my case, I spent some time drawing 'desperate' drawings: an eye with a falling tear looking through a keyhole [suggesting a prison]; people broken in half, right through their hearts [suggesting a 'double life']; animals eating themselves, often specifically their own hearts [suggesting self-loathing]).
There probably would be other things, that I can't think of because I'm not really a specialist in psychology.
The bottom line to me is: it's the manipulation that leads to the harm. I think it is possible that such situations as yours -- sex between adult and child -- could happen without manipulation. The data for this is scarce, but available: societies in which it does happen without harm, plus people who tell stories about having having had sex with adults (like unicorn above, or a colleague of mine who is gay and claims he had a relationship with an older guy when he was still a child). I think this possibility deserves investigation; and I would be very interested in studies about it. Specifically, I would like to know how many people went through situations like yours yet did not end up broken, but actually healthy and happy (how often does that happen?); and what exactly the difference was between your situation and theirs (what made it non-manipulative?).
If you allow me one question (feel free not to answer if you don't want; I certainly don't have the right to impose anything on you): when you say that you figured it out because you realized you were broken (again, I think, like Lolita in Nabokov's book), you mentioned the symptoms and the results: it was making you unable to relate to other people. How do you mean -- you couldn't talk or be friends with people, or you couldn't feel romantically involved with them? Was there a feeling that you be 'cheating' on your father by engaging in romantic feelings with others? And, if at least at first you thought 'everything was OK' and 'you wanted it'... when you first started realizing things weren't as good as they thought, did you talk to your father about it? How did he react, and what did he say to you? Did he show any concern for possible harm to you, or did he try to manipulate you away from your budding understanding of the real situation?
308
@305 (Lorran), who wrote:
This is the kind of sign a second person involved in the situation (your mother, a psychologist) in my ideal case should be looking for. "Withdrawing" (which is the adult way of throwing a tantrum) because one is not getting what one wants is a classical behavior of manipulators. You didn't know that as a child; you would have defended him, out of your love for him. A second person involved should have been able to see that.
Again, Lorran, I am truly, deeply, profoundly sorry that you had this experience. If it were within my power to erase it from your life, believe me, I would.
It took me years to figure out that I did it because if I didn't, he got angry and withdrew.
This is the kind of sign a second person involved in the situation (your mother, a psychologist) in my ideal case should be looking for. "Withdrawing" (which is the adult way of throwing a tantrum) because one is not getting what one wants is a classical behavior of manipulators. You didn't know that as a child; you would have defended him, out of your love for him. A second person involved should have been able to see that.
Again, Lorran, I am truly, deeply, profoundly sorry that you had this experience. If it were within my power to erase it from your life, believe me, I would.
309
@Erica P @134 I think you missed the point @133 was making, she didn't state that a complicit smile between a couple in public was icky (that's pretty much a given at some point in everyone's lives/relationships, I think), but the fact (and feeling, for the outsider) that two people are getting off on something they're doing in front of her (not something they do in their private lives, like sex) at that moment, hence making her an unwilling participant/ onlooker in their sexual lives. I don't know how to explain it, but there IS a difference between both situations, even if I can't exactly put my finger on how it feels, it is clearly distinctive. The first one may be bothersome, but only a little bit, just like any mild PDA. The second situation is genuinely icky and highly inaproppiate, as @133 stated. I've been in both situations, and when I found myself involved in the latter, it grossed me out enough that I didn't bother to visit my friend again until she broke up with that partner, since they've alienated pretty much everyone else with their stares, winks and PDA. I wasn't the only one put off by it, though, and she apologized to most of her friends after the relationship was over because she realized how icky it was looking back.
310
@305(Lorran), who wrote:
My suggestion was: by involving another adult person.
I'd draw a parallel with the BDSM community here. BDSMers are still marginalized, because many people think their lifestyle is inherently unhealthy and abusive. There are indeed of examples of such relationships ending badly (Michael Styranka's book: The Endless Knot: A Spiritual Odyseey through Sado-Masochism) comes to mind.
Such cases were especially abundant in the beginning, when there was no internet, no information, no support groups, and most people with submissive or dominant tendencies thought they were the only person in the world with this horrible affliction. In those days, anti-BDSMers would have lots of arguments based on real-life catastrophes. (To this day, the word 'sadist' evokes all kinds of bad associations.)
After they met each other and more stable communities started to form, especially after the internet, BDSMers came up with their own code of ethics for proper behavior (sane-safe-consensual, negotiate first, safewords, discuss it afterwards, keep communication open, etc.) in order to weed out manipulators (doms and subs -- there are manipulative subs who harm their doms, strangely enough).
If the same were ever to happen to child-adult sexual relations (in some ideal world still light-years away from ours...), I suspect the same would need to happen. I think that my idea that there should be at least one other adult involved, to make sure the child is not being manipulated, would be a good candidate for one of these rules.
How do you propose that we ferret this all out given that we're talking about one of the participants being mentally incomplete?
My suggestion was: by involving another adult person.
I'd draw a parallel with the BDSM community here. BDSMers are still marginalized, because many people think their lifestyle is inherently unhealthy and abusive. There are indeed of examples of such relationships ending badly (Michael Styranka's book: The Endless Knot: A Spiritual Odyseey through Sado-Masochism) comes to mind.
Such cases were especially abundant in the beginning, when there was no internet, no information, no support groups, and most people with submissive or dominant tendencies thought they were the only person in the world with this horrible affliction. In those days, anti-BDSMers would have lots of arguments based on real-life catastrophes. (To this day, the word 'sadist' evokes all kinds of bad associations.)
After they met each other and more stable communities started to form, especially after the internet, BDSMers came up with their own code of ethics for proper behavior (sane-safe-consensual, negotiate first, safewords, discuss it afterwards, keep communication open, etc.) in order to weed out manipulators (doms and subs -- there are manipulative subs who harm their doms, strangely enough).
If the same were ever to happen to child-adult sexual relations (in some ideal world still light-years away from ours...), I suspect the same would need to happen. I think that my idea that there should be at least one other adult involved, to make sure the child is not being manipulated, would be a good candidate for one of these rules.
311
@ PRD
Good thing you are keeping an eye on things. Do you believe him? Maybe you could get him to talk a bit more about things.
Good thing you are keeping an eye on things. Do you believe him? Maybe you could get him to talk a bit more about things.
313
@306(Lorran), here you mention a bunch of symptoms -- "(my severe isolation from other children due to an inability to relate to them, highly sexualized play that generally included playacting rape scenarios, constant nervousness, constantly feeling sick, heightened startle reflex)" which are (especially the last three) obvious red flags and clear symptoms of manipulation. You'll find equivalent symptoms not only in manipulated children, but also in manipulated adults. It's becoming clearer and clearer what exactly your father did wrong. If he had any concern at all for the person who was (at least in his imagination) his sexual partner, he should have noticed all those things and stopped.
Just imagine a normal adult, loving couple in which one of the spouses started showing such symptoms. If the other spouse didn't see that and didn't worry about it -- oh my god, then in what sense is it true that they love each other?
In fact, the symptoms you mention seem so obvious that they even would belie your claim that you looked fairly well-adjusted. In principle, not even an involved second adult (say, a psychologist, as in my suggestion) should be necessary: your mother, your teachers at school, your siblings (did you have any) could probably have noticed that. Anyone with even the flimiest training in psychology would be able to tell you that the feeling that "you liked it too" was just a thin veil concealing your desire for attention and love from your father.
But what am I saying. We all know (and I from personal, disappointing experience) that people in families are often blind even to the most telling signs of abuse and manipulation. Some people seem to be able to ignore even physical damage -- bruises, cuts, scars. Why wouldn't they also ignore or fail to see behavioral signs...
I wonder if your sister feels guilty about having helped you to hide it from your mother. And if your mother feels guilty for not having noticed what was going on.
One of my sisters suffered the same kind of systematic abuse from our father, starting when she was 11. Some of the scenes you describe are so similar to what she later on told me (including the fact she felt she was also guilty of it because 'she also wanted it'), I have an eerie feeling of watching a movie I already know. (Except that, unlike you, she never engaged in sexualized games, or suffered from severe isolation -- she had many friends -- and she wasn't really very nervous. In her case, the symptoms were sudden depression, strange mood swings, and writing poetry -- very sad poetry, with (in hindsight) obvious double-entendres.) It took her quite a long time to recover; but now, at 39, she says she is at peace. She has found a place for her abuse in her life story, one that frees her from painful memories. It took time, but she succeeded. She is now married, and is trying to get pregnant.
I hope you'll sincerely be able to do that, too. The more of your writing I read, Lorran, the more convinced I am that your father is a manipulator, certainly not the kind of man who would have any chance of having sex any child (and probably not even with most adults) in my ideal world.
More...
Just imagine a normal adult, loving couple in which one of the spouses started showing such symptoms. If the other spouse didn't see that and didn't worry about it -- oh my god, then in what sense is it true that they love each other?
In fact, the symptoms you mention seem so obvious that they even would belie your claim that you looked fairly well-adjusted. In principle, not even an involved second adult (say, a psychologist, as in my suggestion) should be necessary: your mother, your teachers at school, your siblings (did you have any) could probably have noticed that. Anyone with even the flimiest training in psychology would be able to tell you that the feeling that "you liked it too" was just a thin veil concealing your desire for attention and love from your father.
But what am I saying. We all know (and I from personal, disappointing experience) that people in families are often blind even to the most telling signs of abuse and manipulation. Some people seem to be able to ignore even physical damage -- bruises, cuts, scars. Why wouldn't they also ignore or fail to see behavioral signs...
I wonder if your sister feels guilty about having helped you to hide it from your mother. And if your mother feels guilty for not having noticed what was going on.
One of my sisters suffered the same kind of systematic abuse from our father, starting when she was 11. Some of the scenes you describe are so similar to what she later on told me (including the fact she felt she was also guilty of it because 'she also wanted it'), I have an eerie feeling of watching a movie I already know. (Except that, unlike you, she never engaged in sexualized games, or suffered from severe isolation -- she had many friends -- and she wasn't really very nervous. In her case, the symptoms were sudden depression, strange mood swings, and writing poetry -- very sad poetry, with (in hindsight) obvious double-entendres.) It took her quite a long time to recover; but now, at 39, she says she is at peace. She has found a place for her abuse in her life story, one that frees her from painful memories. It took time, but she succeeded. She is now married, and is trying to get pregnant.
I hope you'll sincerely be able to do that, too. The more of your writing I read, Lorran, the more convinced I am that your father is a manipulator, certainly not the kind of man who would have any chance of having sex any child (and probably not even with most adults) in my ideal world.
314
@312 (Lord Domly Pants' Bane): no, I don't. And even though it's true that most comment threads often go so far away from the original question that they don't really help the original LW, in this case I am especially sorry for that. I've suggested, here and in the other thread (three times now) that we move the discussion elsewhere (and I've given my e-mail: yiyomihpe@gmail.com). Thus far nobody has followed my suggestion (with one exception, and from a person who is not really participating in this discussion).
315
Indeed, people. Cf. @312 above: isn't it time we went to the e-mail, if we still want to talk about this? Please?
316
@299, the other thread people are talking about is the "Minor Discussion" post in Dan's blog. Here is a link.
And, people -- really, e-mail. Especially because my wife and daughter have just come back -- free time is over now. See y'all later.
And, people -- really, e-mail. Especially because my wife and daughter have just come back -- free time is over now. See y'all later.
317
@Crin
My intent wasn't to criticize your post. It was clear that you were intentionally trying to be as non-triggering as possible and you put a trigger warning at the top if I remember correctly. I read it anyway. It's my own fault.
My intent wasn't to criticize your post. It was clear that you were intentionally trying to be as non-triggering as possible and you put a trigger warning at the top if I remember correctly. I read it anyway. It's my own fault.
318
@ Ankylosaur:
You do notice that your own reasoning is usually about pleasure for the adult as long as it doesn't do harm to the child?
What about the child? Shouldn't the question be "What is good for the child?", instead of merely "It doesn't hurt the child."?
You do notice that your own reasoning is usually about pleasure for the adult as long as it doesn't do harm to the child?
What about the child? Shouldn't the question be "What is good for the child?", instead of merely "It doesn't hurt the child."?
319
CWIA, you are very strong person, I hope you can find the help you seek.
In regards to OK, don't brainwashed adults often refer to their relationships with their abusers as "consensual"? Also, 24/7 sexplay sounds EXHAUSTING, and I'm less than half this lady's age. Just saying.
In regards to OK, don't brainwashed adults often refer to their relationships with their abusers as "consensual"? Also, 24/7 sexplay sounds EXHAUSTING, and I'm less than half this lady's age. Just saying.
320
CWIA, you are very strong person, I hope you can find the help you seek.
In regards to OK, don't brainwashed adults often refer to their relationships with their abusers as "consensual"? Also, 24/7 sexplay sounds EXHAUSTING, and I'm less than half this lady's age. Just saying.
In regards to OK, don't brainwashed adults often refer to their relationships with their abusers as "consensual"? Also, 24/7 sexplay sounds EXHAUSTING, and I'm less than half this lady's age. Just saying.
321
Ank,
"Hunter, wendykh, others -- might claim: the equation "person+person+BDSM = evil" holds no matter the circusmtances."
I never claimed anything the like. That's why I criticize not just the stupendous quantity, but also the quality of your writings.
"Hunter, wendykh, others -- might claim: the equation "person+person+BDSM = evil" holds no matter the circusmtances."
I never claimed anything the like. That's why I criticize not just the stupendous quantity, but also the quality of your writings.
322
317- Mydriasis-- I understood that you weren't criticizing, but I thought the apology was in order anyway. We're cool.
323
sorry Dan I don't agree. Anyone who experiences a sexual attraction to children who chooses to have children (the issue's not just their child; by having children you ensure your life's going to be filled with children - school, friends, teammates, carpool etc.) or work with children SHOULD be reported.
324
I've heard about the ancient Greek culture in which older men had sex with younger boys as part of bonding with them or initiating them into the intelligentsia class from time to time without ever knowing more about it. A few questions before I have a chance to research this on my own.
How old were the boys? Translations are hard enough in our time; they're harder from an ancient language to today's. Were these pre-pubescent boys or young, not-yet-married men?
The writings that have come down putting the practice in a positive light, were any of them written by the boys, or were they all written by the older men?
In other words, is it possible (likely) that we're seeing a variation on what we see today in which the abuser insists that the child enjoyed it, sought him out, initiated the encounter, and was unharmed? Meanwhile, the now-adult child is sobbing somewhere inside and barely able to function sexually while his abuser writes the books, and his viewpoint isn't acknowledged by posterity?
The ancient Greek man-boy love culture is so often brought up as an example of how this could work. I guess I never questioned it before. It's almost enough to make me glad for the protracted discussion on a disturbing subject.
How old were the boys? Translations are hard enough in our time; they're harder from an ancient language to today's. Were these pre-pubescent boys or young, not-yet-married men?
The writings that have come down putting the practice in a positive light, were any of them written by the boys, or were they all written by the older men?
In other words, is it possible (likely) that we're seeing a variation on what we see today in which the abuser insists that the child enjoyed it, sought him out, initiated the encounter, and was unharmed? Meanwhile, the now-adult child is sobbing somewhere inside and barely able to function sexually while his abuser writes the books, and his viewpoint isn't acknowledged by posterity?
The ancient Greek man-boy love culture is so often brought up as an example of how this could work. I guess I never questioned it before. It's almost enough to make me glad for the protracted discussion on a disturbing subject.
325
@Crinoline:
The boys were between 12 and 18. Not everyone in Greek culture agreed with the practice (Plato suggested that the mentor should refrain from sex with the mentee) and in Ionia it wasn't practiced at all.
Regarding if the boys were harmed: It's difficult to determine because harm and benefit was probably defined differently to how it is defined now in Western culture.
I am sure the ancient Greeks did not value the same things in men as we do now, therefore we might view them in hindsight as emotionally deficient, while they thought they were manly men. And the other way round as well: they might look at our society and see weak and effeminate men, while we see men who are empathetic and well-rounded.
In short: I don't think your question can be answered.
The boys were between 12 and 18. Not everyone in Greek culture agreed with the practice (Plato suggested that the mentor should refrain from sex with the mentee) and in Ionia it wasn't practiced at all.
Regarding if the boys were harmed: It's difficult to determine because harm and benefit was probably defined differently to how it is defined now in Western culture.
I am sure the ancient Greeks did not value the same things in men as we do now, therefore we might view them in hindsight as emotionally deficient, while they thought they were manly men. And the other way round as well: they might look at our society and see weak and effeminate men, while we see men who are empathetic and well-rounded.
In short: I don't think your question can be answered.
326
Sidenote: correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't infantacide also completely fine in that culture/time period?
327
@Crinoline:
The boys in ancient Greece were supposedly between 12 and 18.
I think one problem with comparing a different culture and time is that their ideal adult was different to a modern ideal adult. What we might consider a damaged person might have looked to them like a strong man. On the other hand, what we might consider to be the ideal thoughtful empathetic person, might have looked to them like a complete wuss.
The boys in ancient Greece were supposedly between 12 and 18.
I think one problem with comparing a different culture and time is that their ideal adult was different to a modern ideal adult. What we might consider a damaged person might have looked to them like a strong man. On the other hand, what we might consider to be the ideal thoughtful empathetic person, might have looked to them like a complete wuss.
329
Xam@303 solid advice.
Lorran@298, 305/306, etc., I'm so sorry for what you went through. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us...
Blackwood @309, I'm sorry you were exposed to something that disgusted you. I appreciate your advice, but it would be helpful if you could provide more specifics as to how you knew it was icky. If I hold a door open for Mr. P, and he smiles and says thank you, have we already crossed the line? If I open the mail the way he likes it, and someone else was in the room, is my happiness icky? When I shop for groceries and buy his favorite beer, have I exposed the whole store to my sex life?
Lorran@298, 305/306, etc., I'm so sorry for what you went through. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us...
Blackwood @309, I'm sorry you were exposed to something that disgusted you. I appreciate your advice, but it would be helpful if you could provide more specifics as to how you knew it was icky. If I hold a door open for Mr. P, and he smiles and says thank you, have we already crossed the line? If I open the mail the way he likes it, and someone else was in the room, is my happiness icky? When I shop for groceries and buy his favorite beer, have I exposed the whole store to my sex life?
330
I will add, that in sixteen years of marriage, no one who knows me in real life has ever asked me if I was being abused.
331
@302 (ankylosaur)
Ok, so you think it would be all right for an adult to pleasure himself (or herself) to orgasm with a 3 month old infant as long as there is no harm. I think most people here have enough moral awareness to see the problem there. Hopefully they'll connect the dots that there must also be a problem with your reasoning.
So to answer your question: no, it does not necessarily follow that just because there is no harm it MUST be merely socio-culturally construed. You are only arguing from ONE position on ethics. Another view is that ethics are objectively real and humans have an ethical awareness to recognize them. If that is the case then society is not necessarily just "making up a story" about sex with infants being wrong. Instead they could be recognizing an ethical truth at a deep, intuitive level that transcends reason.
But back to your minimalist ethic. You are presuming more knowledge than you have. You can't see the future; you don't really KNOW what harm could be caused. Furthermore, if you think the only wrong acts are those which are harmful, how do you prove that causing harm is wrong? If you are using nothing but nature and reason I don't know that you can prove ANYTHING is wrong.
Ok, so you think it would be all right for an adult to pleasure himself (or herself) to orgasm with a 3 month old infant as long as there is no harm. I think most people here have enough moral awareness to see the problem there. Hopefully they'll connect the dots that there must also be a problem with your reasoning.
So to answer your question: no, it does not necessarily follow that just because there is no harm it MUST be merely socio-culturally construed. You are only arguing from ONE position on ethics. Another view is that ethics are objectively real and humans have an ethical awareness to recognize them. If that is the case then society is not necessarily just "making up a story" about sex with infants being wrong. Instead they could be recognizing an ethical truth at a deep, intuitive level that transcends reason.
But back to your minimalist ethic. You are presuming more knowledge than you have. You can't see the future; you don't really KNOW what harm could be caused. Furthermore, if you think the only wrong acts are those which are harmful, how do you prove that causing harm is wrong? If you are using nothing but nature and reason I don't know that you can prove ANYTHING is wrong.
332
@302/331 - you are both only considering harm to the infant. I would argue that the adult has been harmed.
Dan tells us that we can acquire bad sexual habits (a death grip, etc.). If a man incorporates masturbation over an infant into his repertoire, he is thus changing his sexuality to make sex with children more appealing. Which is harmful, since adults strongly prefer to be attracted to adults.
Dan tells us that we can acquire bad sexual habits (a death grip, etc.). If a man incorporates masturbation over an infant into his repertoire, he is thus changing his sexuality to make sex with children more appealing. Which is harmful, since adults strongly prefer to be attracted to adults.
334
@331, maybe they do have enough moral awareness to see the problem, but they don't seem to have enough to say where the problem is.
Indeed, a non-omniscient being cannot for sure determine future harm, so another concept (something like "likelihood of harm", for instance) would have to be used instead.
But this is not my point. My point is that you, and others here, think that, even if I could determine with 100% certainty (i.e., if I were a god-like omniscient being) that there would be no harm whatsoever in this action, still it would be wrong.
Ergo, I deduce that the harm here is presumed to exist even if it isn't there ('symbolic' harm), which has to be a cultural phenomenon. Your vision is culturally construed.
(And this is not bad intrinsically bad, by the way. How many good things there are -- like the concept of freedom -- that are culturally construed to some, or even to a large, extent?)'
As for how to prove that causing harm is wrong: this is an old problem in the philosophy of ethics ('ought' is not 'is', ethics is not ontology), one that puzzled philosphers till Kant. There are different schools of thought on the topic. My personal preference is simply: arbitration. (There may also be evolutionary reasons why this is a good idea, game theory, yadda-yadda-yadda, so there's a whole direction to explore if you're interested. But I have no problems with claiming: I don't like harm. I don't want to cause it, and I don't want others to cause it, unless there is a very good reason (avoid greater harm). It's ultimately a choice I make.)
Indeed, a non-omniscient being cannot for sure determine future harm, so another concept (something like "likelihood of harm", for instance) would have to be used instead.
But this is not my point. My point is that you, and others here, think that, even if I could determine with 100% certainty (i.e., if I were a god-like omniscient being) that there would be no harm whatsoever in this action, still it would be wrong.
Ergo, I deduce that the harm here is presumed to exist even if it isn't there ('symbolic' harm), which has to be a cultural phenomenon. Your vision is culturally construed.
(And this is not bad intrinsically bad, by the way. How many good things there are -- like the concept of freedom -- that are culturally construed to some, or even to a large, extent?)'
As for how to prove that causing harm is wrong: this is an old problem in the philosophy of ethics ('ought' is not 'is', ethics is not ontology), one that puzzled philosphers till Kant. There are different schools of thought on the topic. My personal preference is simply: arbitration. (There may also be evolutionary reasons why this is a good idea, game theory, yadda-yadda-yadda, so there's a whole direction to explore if you're interested. But I have no problems with claiming: I don't like harm. I don't want to cause it, and I don't want others to cause it, unless there is a very good reason (avoid greater harm). It's ultimately a choice I make.)
335
@332, if restricting one's desires to a certain subset, then it would be harmful (or at least disadvantageous, if it cannot be avoided, i.e. if it's not a choice) to have most kinks (plushies, D/s, foot fetish, age play, etc.), since they severly limit the number of adults you can play with.
If it is true that people are all different, and to a certain extent (the limits of which are, I think, the question here), free to be who s/he really is, then limiting the number of possible players cannot be by itself sufficient reason to claim harm.
I would agree, though, that obsessive behavior is a symptom of harm. If someone is obsessed by some sexual idea, to the point that it affects his functioning in his/her normal daily life, then this individual was somehow harmed.
If it is true that people are all different, and to a certain extent (the limits of which are, I think, the question here), free to be who s/he really is, then limiting the number of possible players cannot be by itself sufficient reason to claim harm.
I would agree, though, that obsessive behavior is a symptom of harm. If someone is obsessed by some sexual idea, to the point that it affects his functioning in his/her normal daily life, then this individual was somehow harmed.
336
"You are presuming more knowledge than you have. You can't see the future; you don't really KNOW what harm could be caused."
It's your scenario, dude, and you're the one who said no harm was done: "Without penetration no physical harm is done. And no emotional harm is done since the infant will not remember it."
If you say that no physical or emotional harm was done, and he accepts that and responds accordingly, you don't get to say "Ah-ha! But harm MAY have been done, so you are a monster for your position!" and pretend that setting him up makes you the better man.
(By the way, ankylosaur, I think you've mistaken my position. While my experience was positive, my belief is that it comes down more to the child, specifically, than the adult or the technique the adult uses in his or her seduction--I happen to know I'm not the only child my abuser fucked, and the other one I know about didn't win the lottery like I did. So clearly it wasn't his superior handling of the situation that resulted in my not being harmed. If the difference between harm being done or not done is how the victim will react, and you have no way of knowing in advance how the victim will react, there is no way for sex between adults and children to be regulated in a way that no child would be harmed. And, again, although my experience was positive, it wasn't such a boon to my life that I feel sorry for kids who didn't get to have what I did, nor do I think my life would be substantially poorer for not having had the experience myself. So, once more, my conclusion is that while it's possible for children and adults to have non-harmful sex, it's not worth the risk.)
It's your scenario, dude, and you're the one who said no harm was done: "Without penetration no physical harm is done. And no emotional harm is done since the infant will not remember it."
If you say that no physical or emotional harm was done, and he accepts that and responds accordingly, you don't get to say "Ah-ha! But harm MAY have been done, so you are a monster for your position!" and pretend that setting him up makes you the better man.
(By the way, ankylosaur, I think you've mistaken my position. While my experience was positive, my belief is that it comes down more to the child, specifically, than the adult or the technique the adult uses in his or her seduction--I happen to know I'm not the only child my abuser fucked, and the other one I know about didn't win the lottery like I did. So clearly it wasn't his superior handling of the situation that resulted in my not being harmed. If the difference between harm being done or not done is how the victim will react, and you have no way of knowing in advance how the victim will react, there is no way for sex between adults and children to be regulated in a way that no child would be harmed. And, again, although my experience was positive, it wasn't such a boon to my life that I feel sorry for kids who didn't get to have what I did, nor do I think my life would be substantially poorer for not having had the experience myself. So, once more, my conclusion is that while it's possible for children and adults to have non-harmful sex, it's not worth the risk.)
337
@336 reposting unicorn's words (in part) for those who don't read unregistered posts:
>>>>> I happen to know I'm not the only child my abuser fucked, and the other one I know about didn't win the lottery like I did. So clearly it wasn't his superior handling of the situation that resulted in my not being harmed. If the difference between harm being done or not done is how the victim will react, and you have no way of knowing in advance how the victim will react, there is no way for sex between adults and children to be regulated in a way that no child would be harmed. And, again, although my experience was positive, it wasn't such a boon to my life that I feel sorry for kids who didn't get to have what I did, nor do I think my life would be substantially poorer for not having had the experience myself. So, once more, my conclusion is that while it's possible for children and adults to have non-harmful sex, it's not worth the risk. >>>>>
>>>>> I happen to know I'm not the only child my abuser fucked, and the other one I know about didn't win the lottery like I did. So clearly it wasn't his superior handling of the situation that resulted in my not being harmed. If the difference between harm being done or not done is how the victim will react, and you have no way of knowing in advance how the victim will react, there is no way for sex between adults and children to be regulated in a way that no child would be harmed. And, again, although my experience was positive, it wasn't such a boon to my life that I feel sorry for kids who didn't get to have what I did, nor do I think my life would be substantially poorer for not having had the experience myself. So, once more, my conclusion is that while it's possible for children and adults to have non-harmful sex, it's not worth the risk. >>>>>
338
This discussion is starting to sound like talking to Holocaust deniers or evolution deniers. You present a mountain of evidence that some thing is the case. Someone questions some small part of argument. (One document could have been forged. One eye witness was later shown to have been lying. The fossil record is unclear in one instance. A scientist or historian stands to benefit from publishing papers or holding a position. A minor inconsistency hasn't been explained.) You explain that no part of the questioning does anything much to chip away at the mountain. The evidence is still there. There's still a mountain.
Here, the mountain is the harm done by introducing sexual activity to children too young to understand or process their feelings, too young to give their consent, too disadvantaged in the power differential. The chipping away comes in the form of one now-adult who wasn't too terribly harmed, a question of whether the harm might be a cultural construct, a computer model of how maybe it might be done differently and therefore not be as harmful, a comparison to something else entirely that used to be thought harmful but turns out not to be, the accusation that the people with the mountain of evidence are too emotional. And yet, that mountain of evidence is still a mountain.
This is what I was getting at in 273 when I said that a man getting turned on by giving his 5 year old a bath causes harm because it does. It wasn't meant to raise any scientific red flags of bad logic. Perhaps my irony was lost on my readers. It was meant to state that there's so much evidence that pointing out more is redundant and pointless. Just ask the victim. Just look to your own visceral reaction. Just look to every culture on earth.
Here, the mountain is the harm done by introducing sexual activity to children too young to understand or process their feelings, too young to give their consent, too disadvantaged in the power differential. The chipping away comes in the form of one now-adult who wasn't too terribly harmed, a question of whether the harm might be a cultural construct, a computer model of how maybe it might be done differently and therefore not be as harmful, a comparison to something else entirely that used to be thought harmful but turns out not to be, the accusation that the people with the mountain of evidence are too emotional. And yet, that mountain of evidence is still a mountain.
This is what I was getting at in 273 when I said that a man getting turned on by giving his 5 year old a bath causes harm because it does. It wasn't meant to raise any scientific red flags of bad logic. Perhaps my irony was lost on my readers. It was meant to state that there's so much evidence that pointing out more is redundant and pointless. Just ask the victim. Just look to your own visceral reaction. Just look to every culture on earth.
339
@336(unicorn), thanks for clarifying this point. I don't think that, in our society, it would be possible for your abuser to really know what to do (just as most BDSMers in the past, even those with good intentions, would know what to do); if he did, it would be one golden stroke of good luck. Which is why my original advice to CWIA is and remains that he find ways of living without satisfying his desires.
I do think the possibility of a good way of doing that exists (as BDSMers demonstrated in their case), because I don't see the harm as intrinsic; and I see the possibility of results that would be better than yours (more growth, more development, etc.). But whether or not this is true (and I'm not claiming it is, just that it is possible), we're certainly not going to see that for a long, long time.
@Crinoline, and I have the impression of talking to people who think that the Holocaust was simply perpetrated by the Germans, instead of by the Nazis (there's a difference; there were non-Nazi Germans, and non-German Nazis; etc.). People keep claiming "German=evil", I keep saying "no: Nazi=evil, not German=evil", and this is seen as offensive ("He's defending Germans! He is defending the Holocaust! He's an anti-semite!").
The mountain of harm is there. No discussion. But you guys say the harm comes from child+ADULT sex. I say it comes from child+ABUSER sex (ADULT = ABUSER is not logically true in general, and I think also not in this specific case.). Besides, the data on the other side -- cases of non-harm, like unicorn's -- is not equally available, for obvious reasons. What am I ignoring? And you tell me I'm just denying details, quibbling about one little document that could have been forged... Really? Is this really what I'm doing? Are you being fair to me?
My impression is that we're simply cross-talking because you're not seeing what I'm saying, but something else -- something darker than what I'm really saying. And if so, you'll go on seeing it here, in this post, and claim that I'm ignoring the obvious. You (or someone else) might also say something like: "look, even unicorn doesn't agree with you; isn't that enough?"
Sigh.
OK. Have it your way.
More...
I do think the possibility of a good way of doing that exists (as BDSMers demonstrated in their case), because I don't see the harm as intrinsic; and I see the possibility of results that would be better than yours (more growth, more development, etc.). But whether or not this is true (and I'm not claiming it is, just that it is possible), we're certainly not going to see that for a long, long time.
@Crinoline, and I have the impression of talking to people who think that the Holocaust was simply perpetrated by the Germans, instead of by the Nazis (there's a difference; there were non-Nazi Germans, and non-German Nazis; etc.). People keep claiming "German=evil", I keep saying "no: Nazi=evil, not German=evil", and this is seen as offensive ("He's defending Germans! He is defending the Holocaust! He's an anti-semite!").
The mountain of harm is there. No discussion. But you guys say the harm comes from child+ADULT sex. I say it comes from child+ABUSER sex (ADULT = ABUSER is not logically true in general, and I think also not in this specific case.). Besides, the data on the other side -- cases of non-harm, like unicorn's -- is not equally available, for obvious reasons. What am I ignoring? And you tell me I'm just denying details, quibbling about one little document that could have been forged... Really? Is this really what I'm doing? Are you being fair to me?
My impression is that we're simply cross-talking because you're not seeing what I'm saying, but something else -- something darker than what I'm really saying. And if so, you'll go on seeing it here, in this post, and claim that I'm ignoring the obvious. You (or someone else) might also say something like: "look, even unicorn doesn't agree with you; isn't that enough?"
Sigh.
OK. Have it your way.
341
Hi. I'm a second unicorn. I'm a student of French literature in a university in Europe, 24 year old, and I had (non-penetrative) sex when I was 10 wit an adult, a my cousin, 20 year old, who lived with us in the house. I also thougt it was fun and games, and it basically was. He treated me well. I never felt used or abused, more like a darling. He was always gentil and nice, always asked how I felt. After a year, he moved to Lyon, so everything stopped. We met sometimes after that, but nothing happened again. He ask me if I felt bad, or anything, he was concerned; but I said no, everything was fine. He is a good man.
I wasn't harmed. I had friends, one or two boyfriends. Now I'm pregnant, and angaged. I'm happy, I think, not more and not less than most of my friends. But I think it was good to have that experience. It made me feel that sex was no big difficult, and I felt better about myself. I thought that I was ugly, or stupid, but no, I'm not, and he helped me to see that.
Sorry for my broken English. I usually lurk here, just now want to mention one experience, something I hide til now. I hope it helps.
I wasn't harmed. I had friends, one or two boyfriends. Now I'm pregnant, and angaged. I'm happy, I think, not more and not less than most of my friends. But I think it was good to have that experience. It made me feel that sex was no big difficult, and I felt better about myself. I thought that I was ugly, or stupid, but no, I'm not, and he helped me to see that.
Sorry for my broken English. I usually lurk here, just now want to mention one experience, something I hide til now. I hope it helps.
342
340! Erica-- You beat me to it. I was going to ask when I posted 338 if Godwin's law only applied to comparisons to Hitler or if anything having to do with the Holocaust counted. Looks like it does. I almost made my comparison entirely with evolution deniers but thought Holocaust denial made my point more completely. Thanks for the link/meme. Good to know.
343
I need advice. I saw an email from a girl that my fiance briefly dated. In the email she was begging him back and said she would give him head every morning just the way he liked it. We have been on and off for 8 years and I shouldnt let this bother me because I have done things that are much worse. He and I have an extremely healthy sex life, some nights I feel like an animal. It most definitely is not about the girl, I didnt even catch her name. I am not an insecure girl, I model and am a student heading towards the medical field. I just cant stand thinking of him with anyone else. After seeing that email it really turned me off. What do I do for him to take me seriously, understand where I'm coming from, and most importantly forget.
344
I can only speak for myself, but at the age of 14 I would have LOVED to be able to have (consensual) sex with men like those in the pictures I cut and hoarded from magazines at the time and to whom I jerked off day and night. Of course 14 years olds can be abused, as can 30 year olds, but lots of 14 year olds also have sex in this culture in ways that are not regarded as criminal, and to say that they can only consent to sex with others in the same age range is absurd.
345
I think we're all using different definitions of 'child' here.
14 years old is not a child in my book. They're a teenager. And pedophiles are to me (and the DSM) people who want to have sex with prepubescent children (so typically a single digit age).
14 years old is not a child in my book. They're a teenager. And pedophiles are to me (and the DSM) people who want to have sex with prepubescent children (so typically a single digit age).
346
@343, I think a lot depends on what he wants to do. If he really likes you and is sincere, then you'll have to trust him -- or else, if you can't, if you think jealousy will eat you from the inside, then your relationship will have a big problem.
If on the other hand he wants the blow jobs she is promising him, then you'd have to make it clear to him that this would imply losing you, and all the incredible, healthy sex life that the two of you share.
If him accepting this offer is a deal-breaker to you, I'd suggest you make this clear to him in no ambiguous terms.
But I don't understand one thing. You say you were on and off with him for 8 years, and you did things that were worse (than him getting blowjobs from a nex). Aren't you setting a double standard here? You don't want him with the other girl -- when you yourself have done worse than that?
If on the other hand he wants the blow jobs she is promising him, then you'd have to make it clear to him that this would imply losing you, and all the incredible, healthy sex life that the two of you share.
If him accepting this offer is a deal-breaker to you, I'd suggest you make this clear to him in no ambiguous terms.
But I don't understand one thing. You say you were on and off with him for 8 years, and you did things that were worse (than him getting blowjobs from a nex). Aren't you setting a double standard here? You don't want him with the other girl -- when you yourself have done worse than that?
347
@EricaP I wasn't talking about D/s like in your case (although it's not relevant for that matter), but I was just pointing out that there's a difference between two people laughing or smiling at a private joke or something referred to a part of their lives you don't know, and them getting off on something they're doing right in front of you at that very moment without your willing participation (i.e, at your expense). In my experience, it was so obvious and transparent that I wasn't the only one who was squicked out by it (like I said, most of my friend's other friends stopped calling her for that reason, because it was creepy to be caught in the middle of her and her attached-at-the-hip partner). I'm not saying subtle stuff like you mention in your example (I don't think there's anything wrong with pleasing your husband because you get turned on by it, since I assume the actual "reward" is in private or with willing witnesses), but more like being sitting on the same table and sharing not-at-all-subtle winks, stares and smiles, touching under the table, suddenly giggling/laughing without any apparent explanation etc., but they weren't "abstract" things like you mention in your example (doing what looks like a "normal" chore or favor because it turns you on in your mind), but rather actual "facts" (touching, winking, giggling, like I cited before). I felt like I was being part of their foreplay. If you are discreet and don't make everyone feel out of place, you can do whatever you want without alienating anyone. The problem is when people are so caught up in their own sex play that they forget other people are around them. It's like knowing two people are making "secret" fun at your expense right in your face, but with the added annoyance of the icky factor because you're being involved in their sex lives unwillingly.
And lastly (sorry for the long post), I didn't mean to imply that you were doing it or that getting turned on by "everyday chores" that can be done or are usually done in public is wrong, (unless you act on it on public, i.e, act in a way that shows it's a sexual thing to you in front of other people) I was just trying to explain why I thought your response @133 was off. You seem like a very centered person, I like how you always take your time to answer to every single question and enjoy reading your responses to other comments. I hope you didn't take my previous comment as an offense, because it wasn't meant that way.
More...
And lastly (sorry for the long post), I didn't mean to imply that you were doing it or that getting turned on by "everyday chores" that can be done or are usually done in public is wrong, (unless you act on it on public, i.e, act in a way that shows it's a sexual thing to you in front of other people) I was just trying to explain why I thought your response @133 was off. You seem like a very centered person, I like how you always take your time to answer to every single question and enjoy reading your responses to other comments. I hope you didn't take my previous comment as an offense, because it wasn't meant that way.
348
@347, I agree that playing footsie is icky if other people know it's happening. I didn't think that's what 134 was saying, but I may have misinterpreted that post.
349
343-- Kayla-- What can you do to make him take you seriously, understand where you're coming from, and forget?
For starters, you can stop snooping in his email.
For starters, you can stop snooping in his email.
350
Ank;
For the record, I completely understand your argument. The premises you set up are logical, but I just think it doesn't cross over into application/life (not even in a 'perfect world' as you say).
For the record, I completely understand your argument. The premises you set up are logical, but I just think it doesn't cross over into application/life (not even in a 'perfect world' as you say).
352
@350, OK. I sincerely don't think there's anything more I could ask from you or anyone. Thank you.
353
@EricaP I guess I understood it that way because by the end of the comment she wrote : "Seeing a couple "share a smile" and having any reason to suspect it was because they were getting off on what they were doing in front of me? Would disgust me just as much. More, maybe."
so it occurred to me that it wouldn't be the fact that the couple were smiling to one another what would bother the commenter, but the fact that it had to do with something they were doing in her presence, hence making her a part of it.
so it occurred to me that it wouldn't be the fact that the couple were smiling to one another what would bother the commenter, but the fact that it had to do with something they were doing in her presence, hence making her a part of it.
354
Ank -
For argument's sake, answer this purely theoretical question: would you let a stranger have sex with your underage daughter, provided it is being supervised by a knowing adult (you, for instance)? If I understood you correctly, supervision and setting the rules was one of the points you emphasized.
For argument's sake, answer this purely theoretical question: would you let a stranger have sex with your underage daughter, provided it is being supervised by a knowing adult (you, for instance)? If I understood you correctly, supervision and setting the rules was one of the points you emphasized.
356
@334 (ankylosaur)
No, it does not follow that therefore it MUST be culturally construed. Your conclusion is dependent on the unproven premise that the only truly wrong actions are those which harm someone else. That is not a foregone conclusion.
And your dislike of harm might work for YOU to determine what is wrong for YOURSELF, but it doesn't tell me why it is wrong for someone else if that is what they want to do.
No, it does not follow that therefore it MUST be culturally construed. Your conclusion is dependent on the unproven premise that the only truly wrong actions are those which harm someone else. That is not a foregone conclusion.
And your dislike of harm might work for YOU to determine what is wrong for YOURSELF, but it doesn't tell me why it is wrong for someone else if that is what they want to do.
357
257-PRD
If you turn your friend into the authorities when he has never harmed a child, you will have ruined the life of an innocent man.
If you say nothing while your friend has and continues to molest children, you will have ruined the lives of hundreds of young men with ripple effects to an even larger number.
The likelihood of each, whether he really is innocent or whether not, should also be put into the equation. Given the warning flags that you have put in your 12 points, you have, on the one side: that he is secretive, has never been in an adult romantic relationship, has admitted to you that he is a boy lover, has an association with NAMBLA, and has sought out the company of boys, possibly vulnerable boys. On the other hand, you have is statement that the only thing that keeps him from abusing children is a fear of jail. I'd put the evidence on the side of abusing children.
By saying nothing, the blood will be on your hands. Can you imagine looking in the eye of 12 hurt, possibly suicidal men, and telling them that you had your strong suspicions but decided not to say anything because you didn't have absolute proof? They'll guess, rightly, that you were more concerned with not stirring up trouble for yourself.
When turning him in to whatever police or agency oversees these things (and I don't know who it would be in my community), if you choose to do so (and I urge you to), stick to the truth. People will jump to horrible conclusions on their own. Only mention your concerns and what has been said. If it turns out that he actually has never laid a hand on a boy, if absolutely no credible victim turns up, I can't imagine a jail sentence for your friend. He may go through hell defending himself, but there would be no sentence.
More...
If you turn your friend into the authorities when he has never harmed a child, you will have ruined the life of an innocent man.
If you say nothing while your friend has and continues to molest children, you will have ruined the lives of hundreds of young men with ripple effects to an even larger number.
The likelihood of each, whether he really is innocent or whether not, should also be put into the equation. Given the warning flags that you have put in your 12 points, you have, on the one side: that he is secretive, has never been in an adult romantic relationship, has admitted to you that he is a boy lover, has an association with NAMBLA, and has sought out the company of boys, possibly vulnerable boys. On the other hand, you have is statement that the only thing that keeps him from abusing children is a fear of jail. I'd put the evidence on the side of abusing children.
By saying nothing, the blood will be on your hands. Can you imagine looking in the eye of 12 hurt, possibly suicidal men, and telling them that you had your strong suspicions but decided not to say anything because you didn't have absolute proof? They'll guess, rightly, that you were more concerned with not stirring up trouble for yourself.
When turning him in to whatever police or agency oversees these things (and I don't know who it would be in my community), if you choose to do so (and I urge you to), stick to the truth. People will jump to horrible conclusions on their own. Only mention your concerns and what has been said. If it turns out that he actually has never laid a hand on a boy, if absolutely no credible victim turns up, I can't imagine a jail sentence for your friend. He may go through hell defending himself, but there would be no sentence.
358
@357 Crinoline:
Thank you for the input. I am talking about this with counselors (one of whom works with teenage boys), and have spoken with a friend who is a civil rights attorney. (Without revealing his identity, of course). My wife and I have also had a couple long talks. It's time for me to do something. I'll make a decision in the next day or so.
Thank you for the input. I am talking about this with counselors (one of whom works with teenage boys), and have spoken with a friend who is a civil rights attorney. (Without revealing his identity, of course). My wife and I have also had a couple long talks. It's time for me to do something. I'll make a decision in the next day or so.
359
358- PRD-- Will you let us know how it goes? I'm especially interested in hearing if I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong. I'd love it if it turns out that this is just an eccentric guy who hasn't abused hundreds of boys. I'll be reading this comments section in a year and looking for your update then.
360
@ ankylosaur
My mother had "consensual" oral sex with a trusted adult when she was seven. He was a friend's older brother, and he wasn't in charge of her, or an authority in any way. In fact, he called himself her boyfriend.
And it seriously screwed her up. It gave her a skewed view of relationships, she wound up having sex a lot of times when she didn't want to because she felt like it was what was expected of her, and thus all a man really wanted her for. She got all sorts of STD's while still in her teens, and the icing on the cake, she got pregnant at the age of 16, intentionally.
The man was polite, clean, and genuinely concerned for her welfare. He convinced himself that she was ready for it, and he asked for her permission.
But at seven you don't know where you begin and end, and it's really hard to say no to an adult, even when they try to take your feelings into account. An adult is more aware of where they begin and end, so even if they don't mean to, even if they flat out say "you can refuse" a child has a hard time refusing and it's emotional coercion.
I also have a problem with a person of normal intelligence having sex with a person with a serious mental disability. Even with the best of intentions, it's really hard to be certain that they are capable of saying no.
My mom had problems with men for the rest of her life because of this. She even married a man who was really controlling because in her mind that's what made men attractive. The fact that she had trouble saying "no."
The good news is that she made sure we were never in the position she was. To the point of paranoia, sure, but I can't blame her. Heck, I remember a few times where she took me aside and asked "Your father, he's never touched you, has he?" She was almost certain he hadn't, but she had to be sure. NO-ONE was going to hurt her babies that way.
More...
My mother had "consensual" oral sex with a trusted adult when she was seven. He was a friend's older brother, and he wasn't in charge of her, or an authority in any way. In fact, he called himself her boyfriend.
And it seriously screwed her up. It gave her a skewed view of relationships, she wound up having sex a lot of times when she didn't want to because she felt like it was what was expected of her, and thus all a man really wanted her for. She got all sorts of STD's while still in her teens, and the icing on the cake, she got pregnant at the age of 16, intentionally.
The man was polite, clean, and genuinely concerned for her welfare. He convinced himself that she was ready for it, and he asked for her permission.
But at seven you don't know where you begin and end, and it's really hard to say no to an adult, even when they try to take your feelings into account. An adult is more aware of where they begin and end, so even if they don't mean to, even if they flat out say "you can refuse" a child has a hard time refusing and it's emotional coercion.
I also have a problem with a person of normal intelligence having sex with a person with a serious mental disability. Even with the best of intentions, it's really hard to be certain that they are capable of saying no.
My mom had problems with men for the rest of her life because of this. She even married a man who was really controlling because in her mind that's what made men attractive. The fact that she had trouble saying "no."
The good news is that she made sure we were never in the position she was. To the point of paranoia, sure, but I can't blame her. Heck, I remember a few times where she took me aside and asked "Your father, he's never touched you, has he?" She was almost certain he hadn't, but she had to be sure. NO-ONE was going to hurt her babies that way.
361
First, I want to thank CWIA for being so brave and forthcoming. There were a couple of people in the comments who said he was scum and why should we care about him. Well, empathy is always nice for one but maybe more importantly you should care about him because he doesn't want to harm kids, and the system is making it really difficult tto achieve that, and that becomes a societal problem as opposed to just a personal burden. Although I have issues with chemical cstration maybe in cases like this it would be best. His brain is somehow hardwired to like prepubescent boys, so not sure if just having a young lover would do it, but he could try. Of course he should stay aaway from kids. I think he should just pretend he can't stand them. If people aask, he could say he doesn't mix well with kids, which is true, but if you say it like that people will just think he doesn't like them. And if there are social situations with friends with kids, just ignore them, don't talk to them or talk very minimally. Show NO interest in their lives. I wish him luck.
Now on to Ank. I actually had to collect my thoughts before writing this part, not becaause I have EVER been the victim of sexual abuse (or any abuse, except slight verbal abuse with an ex.) but because I have siblings who are kids. (I'm 38.) My sister, who is way prebubescent, is so very niave aboout sex and romance, as she SHOULD be at her age. She kind of knows that grown ups do something in bed, and that that can make a baby, but is very fuzzy, When we watch sitcoms together, she will leave the room when two people are in bed (and I'm slowly teaching her not to be homophobic as she had said "icky" when I showed her a picture of my two gay friends getting maarried. None of my family is homophobic and we live in the opposite of a homophobic place so it is just her ideas) Of course I want her to be "sex positive" and to know about both the risks, and the fun stuff that comes with sex. However, i actually think it would makke her feel "sex negative" if my parents or I initiated something and made hher have sex before she even knew what thaat meant. My brother felt similarly at 9 (her age) , no interest, sex is icky, and now at 13, he is itching to you knoow do stuff. (and we have had the safe sex talk and also the think one minute before you impulsiveely do something talk.) Howvever, even now, I don't think an adult should seduce my brother, because there would still be a power inbalance. Let he and a girl (or guy, but he likes girls only at the moment.) explore for themselves and discover together. That would seem to be the fun part of tteen sex. Seriously though at 12 or 13, hormones take over and kids start to want sexual things. Why hasten it? Also for a pedophille, do you really think he (or she) would be able to do it just one time? It is like me eating M&M's . I know it's wrong, not good for me, but once I have had one, I just have a hard time stopping myself.
I feel like everything that needs to be said has been said by other people. (plus some stuff that was better left unsaid.) I will leave off with this . Most adults can give informed consent to other adults about what they want to do with their bodies. (Thus I find the nonmonagamy parerell (sp) that was up there somewhere just off base.) but kids can't give informed consent to adults.
More...
Now on to Ank. I actually had to collect my thoughts before writing this part, not becaause I have EVER been the victim of sexual abuse (or any abuse, except slight verbal abuse with an ex.) but because I have siblings who are kids. (I'm 38.) My sister, who is way prebubescent, is so very niave aboout sex and romance, as she SHOULD be at her age. She kind of knows that grown ups do something in bed, and that that can make a baby, but is very fuzzy, When we watch sitcoms together, she will leave the room when two people are in bed (and I'm slowly teaching her not to be homophobic as she had said "icky" when I showed her a picture of my two gay friends getting maarried. None of my family is homophobic and we live in the opposite of a homophobic place so it is just her ideas) Of course I want her to be "sex positive" and to know about both the risks, and the fun stuff that comes with sex. However, i actually think it would makke her feel "sex negative" if my parents or I initiated something and made hher have sex before she even knew what thaat meant. My brother felt similarly at 9 (her age) , no interest, sex is icky, and now at 13, he is itching to you knoow do stuff. (and we have had the safe sex talk and also the think one minute before you impulsiveely do something talk.) Howvever, even now, I don't think an adult should seduce my brother, because there would still be a power inbalance. Let he and a girl (or guy, but he likes girls only at the moment.) explore for themselves and discover together. That would seem to be the fun part of tteen sex. Seriously though at 12 or 13, hormones take over and kids start to want sexual things. Why hasten it? Also for a pedophille, do you really think he (or she) would be able to do it just one time? It is like me eating M&M's . I know it's wrong, not good for me, but once I have had one, I just have a hard time stopping myself.
I feel like everything that needs to be said has been said by other people. (plus some stuff that was better left unsaid.) I will leave off with this . Most adults can give informed consent to other adults about what they want to do with their bodies. (Thus I find the nonmonagamy parerell (sp) that was up there somewhere just off base.) but kids can't give informed consent to adults.
362
What about creating a very lifelike sex doll/robot in the image of a child? If there was enough variety, perhaps a troop of child sex robots could satisfy pedophiles without creating victims. I know it sounds like a joke, but I'm kind of serious...
363
What about creating a very lifelike sex doll/robot in the image of a child? If there was enough variety, perhaps a troop of child sex robots could satisfy pedophiles without creating victims. I know it sounds like a joke, but I'm kind of serious...
364
I think that Dan is just an anti-pedophile bigot. Why should CWIA not have children? Or not work with children? It reminds me of those bigots who say that gays shouldnt have children. If he is a pedophile then he needs to be in company of children to be happy, just like any heterosexual man needs to be women.
I would advise CWIA to WORK with children as much as he can and to have all the children he wishes.
CWIA, PLEASE, DO HAVE CHILDREN AND DO WORK WITH CHILDREN.
I would advise CWIA to WORK with children as much as he can and to have all the children he wishes.
CWIA, PLEASE, DO HAVE CHILDREN AND DO WORK WITH CHILDREN.
365
I think that Dan is just an anti-pedophile bigot. Why should CWIA not have children? Or not work with children?
It reminds me of those bigots who say that gays shouldnt have children.
I would advise CWIA to WORK with children as much as he can and to have all the children he wishes.
CWIA, PLEASE, DO HAVE CHILDREN AND DO WORK WITH CHILDREN. SHOW THOSE BIGOTS!
It reminds me of those bigots who say that gays shouldnt have children.
I would advise CWIA to WORK with children as much as he can and to have all the children he wishes.
CWIA, PLEASE, DO HAVE CHILDREN AND DO WORK WITH CHILDREN. SHOW THOSE BIGOTS!
366
I think that Dan is just an anti-pedophile bigot. Why should CWIA not have children? Or not work with children?
It reminds me of those bigots who say that gays shouldnt have children.
I would advise CWIA to WORK with children as much as he can and to have all the children he wishes.
CWIA, PLEASE, DO HAVE CHILDREN AND DO WORK WITH CHILDREN. SHOW THOSE BIGOTS!
It reminds me of those bigots who say that gays shouldnt have children.
I would advise CWIA to WORK with children as much as he can and to have all the children he wishes.
CWIA, PLEASE, DO HAVE CHILDREN AND DO WORK WITH CHILDREN. SHOW THOSE BIGOTS!
367
@sassy73
"Of course he should stay aaway from kids. I think he should just pretend he can't stand them. If people aask, he could say he doesn't mix well with kids, which is true, but if you say it like that people will just think he doesn't like them. And if there are social situations with friends with kids, just ignore them, don't talk to them or talk very minimally. Show NO interest in their lives. I wish him luck. "
Worst advice ever. Why he should "stay away from kids" like if he was some kind of rapist? Should heterosexual men stay away from women? Should gays have their own personal bathroom so they dont mix with heterosexual men? Why he should act like if he "doesnt like kids" when actually he LOVES kids? It's absurd. For a pedophile, being in the company of kids is everything.
You remind me of those bigots who say that gays shouldnt have kids and shouldnt be even allowed to be with them. Dont you think you sound similar, or equal?
I just HATE those people who say that CWIA shouldnt be with kids. That people obviously have never met a pedophile and dont know how well children and pedos get along.
"Of course he should stay aaway from kids. I think he should just pretend he can't stand them. If people aask, he could say he doesn't mix well with kids, which is true, but if you say it like that people will just think he doesn't like them. And if there are social situations with friends with kids, just ignore them, don't talk to them or talk very minimally. Show NO interest in their lives. I wish him luck. "
Worst advice ever. Why he should "stay away from kids" like if he was some kind of rapist? Should heterosexual men stay away from women? Should gays have their own personal bathroom so they dont mix with heterosexual men? Why he should act like if he "doesnt like kids" when actually he LOVES kids? It's absurd. For a pedophile, being in the company of kids is everything.
You remind me of those bigots who say that gays shouldnt have kids and shouldnt be even allowed to be with them. Dont you think you sound similar, or equal?
I just HATE those people who say that CWIA shouldnt be with kids. That people obviously have never met a pedophile and dont know how well children and pedos get along.
369
I love the definition of Santorum, but let's go ahead and change his last name. First, I am a Marine Veteran, Christian, heterosexual male, and oh my gosh, I went to Ohio State, got my degree, and now have about 20 years of more education then any Republican runnning for President, lol. Anyways, I remember reading in the BIBLE, you know, that thing that Republicans pick and choose how they want to interpret, but I seem to remember a few things in the BIBLE. First, Jesus says to be accepting of all, and love one another as he loved us (Santorum does a great job, haha). Secondly, who we are on the inside, is not who we are on the outside, so who is Rick Santorum, or any conservative for that matter, able to speak as to who a person truly is on the inside, when only God knows that. And, low and behold, Biology proves that teaching there by illustrating how male and females can develop the opposite of sex hormones while developing. But finally, when discussing a knew defintion for this guy, I remember a study showing a lot of truly homophobic are closet cases that in an attempt to seem more masculine target homosexuals. So.... the new defintion of Rick should be, in honor of all his criticisms of homosexuality, the new definition of Rick should be, "A homosexual closet case attempting to prove to the world how heterosexual he is"
370
I haven't made it through even half of the comments yet, but I have to respond to what EricaP was asking farther up the thread about how D/s non-sexual behavior is akin to/different from kissing, hugging, butt-slapping, etc.
As someone who thinks that PDA is just generally inappropriate... I would say even if there is much of a difference in what you're describing... It is still inappropriate to do in front of most people. Any time you touch or flirt with someone in public, you are inviting them into your own intimacy, which can be extremely uncomfortable for many people, myself definitely included. Usually when I see people behaving in this manner, they have half-tuned-out others present to begin with, and are definitely not making a real concerted effort to be polite and see their actions from someone else's perspective.
But leaving aside whether or not PDA is acceptable... perhaps we could compromise and say that PDA which has no sexual connotation is appropriate? In this case, if we're assuming that some D/s behavior has no sexual connotation, then it stands that the behavior/touching still has some sort of connotation to other outside parties who are witness to it. They are going to infer something about the behavior; they can't help it.
To me, D/s behavior isn't appropriate in public because 1)sexual behavior is not appropriate in public and 2)behavior that suggests there is a power differential NOT related to sex is not something that I would want a child to see. As a conscientious feminist and egalitarian, I definitely want my kids to grow up, as much as possible, viewing themselves as individuals who should not accept or aspire to being controlled by another individual. If they grow up and then are capable of making the conscious and well-informed choice to participate in a D/s lifestyle, that's fine, but I don't want it to be because they internalized that behavior from someone else without the ability to think critically about it. Even if that seems as "benign" as watching one partner usually or always follow the demands or requests of another.
Furthermore, if the behavior has no sexual connotation, it is completely acceptable for an outside adult source to see the behavior as, at the very least, unhealthy if not abusive. To the average outsider, abuse and a D/s lifestyle don't look very different, and the polite and conscientious D/s participator should probably abstain because of that. If the person doesn't abstain, they should at least always be able and ready to admit and explain what is going on in their relationship, and not blame the person who was brave and concerned enough to try to spot and then stop abuse if they don't immediately accept it. To the outside observer, a D/s relationship has a lot of overlap with abuse... and it's not a bad thing if the observer looks with a suspicious eye at someone who is saying they aren't being abused. Abused people do this often.
In short, I have no idea if a D/s lifestyle outside of the bedroom is healthy or not. I can think of plenty of good evidence to suggest both viewpoints, most of which has already been touched on in other comments. But I don't think it's appropriate in public, or in front of children. The daughter of the woman in question has every right to not expose her children to this kind of behavior, and to deny the BF the ability to be around the children if he and her mother can't put their behavior aside. Maybe he's really abusive, maybe he's not, but if he and his gf can't stop the behavior while they're around the children... maybe they are the real assholes here, and the daughter is right all along.
More...
As someone who thinks that PDA is just generally inappropriate... I would say even if there is much of a difference in what you're describing... It is still inappropriate to do in front of most people. Any time you touch or flirt with someone in public, you are inviting them into your own intimacy, which can be extremely uncomfortable for many people, myself definitely included. Usually when I see people behaving in this manner, they have half-tuned-out others present to begin with, and are definitely not making a real concerted effort to be polite and see their actions from someone else's perspective.
But leaving aside whether or not PDA is acceptable... perhaps we could compromise and say that PDA which has no sexual connotation is appropriate? In this case, if we're assuming that some D/s behavior has no sexual connotation, then it stands that the behavior/touching still has some sort of connotation to other outside parties who are witness to it. They are going to infer something about the behavior; they can't help it.
To me, D/s behavior isn't appropriate in public because 1)sexual behavior is not appropriate in public and 2)behavior that suggests there is a power differential NOT related to sex is not something that I would want a child to see. As a conscientious feminist and egalitarian, I definitely want my kids to grow up, as much as possible, viewing themselves as individuals who should not accept or aspire to being controlled by another individual. If they grow up and then are capable of making the conscious and well-informed choice to participate in a D/s lifestyle, that's fine, but I don't want it to be because they internalized that behavior from someone else without the ability to think critically about it. Even if that seems as "benign" as watching one partner usually or always follow the demands or requests of another.
Furthermore, if the behavior has no sexual connotation, it is completely acceptable for an outside adult source to see the behavior as, at the very least, unhealthy if not abusive. To the average outsider, abuse and a D/s lifestyle don't look very different, and the polite and conscientious D/s participator should probably abstain because of that. If the person doesn't abstain, they should at least always be able and ready to admit and explain what is going on in their relationship, and not blame the person who was brave and concerned enough to try to spot and then stop abuse if they don't immediately accept it. To the outside observer, a D/s relationship has a lot of overlap with abuse... and it's not a bad thing if the observer looks with a suspicious eye at someone who is saying they aren't being abused. Abused people do this often.
In short, I have no idea if a D/s lifestyle outside of the bedroom is healthy or not. I can think of plenty of good evidence to suggest both viewpoints, most of which has already been touched on in other comments. But I don't think it's appropriate in public, or in front of children. The daughter of the woman in question has every right to not expose her children to this kind of behavior, and to deny the BF the ability to be around the children if he and her mother can't put their behavior aside. Maybe he's really abusive, maybe he's not, but if he and his gf can't stop the behavior while they're around the children... maybe they are the real assholes here, and the daughter is right all along.
371
In my state of residence, the legal driving age is 16. This age cutoff is arbitrary—there will be some teens who are ready, both technically and for the responsibility, of driving at earlier ages. There will be some teens (and adults, frankly) who shouldn’t ever be behind the wheel of a car. But the law ensures that though some may be unable to drive as soon as they could be, it will at least keep the vast majority of people from driving sooner than they should be. For example, I had grandparents that lived on a small ranch. Staring around the age of 12, my parents allowed me to drive their vehicles both unsupervised and supervised around the property. There was no traffic through the property and I was not ever allowed on the paved road that ran perpendicular to my grandparent’s main dirt road. In no time, I technically learned how to operate a motor vehicle. But did I learn how to drive? I don’t know, perhaps I was mature enough at 12 to get on the highway and have never harmed a soul. And if somehow I was legally allowed to drive four years earlier than I should have been, would it have been worth it to test it? What if I had been 8? Assuming that an 8 year old can fulfill the technical requirements for driving a car (such as being able to reach the pedals, see out the windows, etc), is an 8 year old brain developed enough to understand the responsibilities that driving entails?
There is nothing I have ever read to suggest that the majority of prepubescent children have the capacity to understand consequences or the future the way adults can, simply because their little brains are still developing. So just because some eight or twelve year olds could drive a car, does that mean it’s a good idea to let them on the road? To make exemptions for them just because a few can? Just because there may be some children out there for whom sexual contact might not be extremely traumatic because those children are exceptionally mature does not mean that generally speaking, sexual contact between adults and children is a good idea and can or even should be tried.
And, wtf? Issues of consent aside, just because a child’s body has the ability to respond to touch does not mean an adult should provide it. Children are sexual beings, but they can healthily explore their own sexuality, without the aid of adults, by themselves or with same/opposite sex peers. Hell, I know I did. I have never been abused in any way, I started touching myself around 7 or 8 and had a couple of playmates around my age (plus or minus a year or two) that we explored kissing and light petting with. But it was all a process of self-discovery, embarked on BY ME FOR ME. I think these kinds of sex play are empowering. But what you propose is not. What you propose is abusive, no matter how you try to slice it. I’d like to see some empirical evidence about how many children who are becoming aware of their sexual selves to actively seek adult sexual partners to learn about sex. From what I seem to gather from anecdotal evidence and my admittedly limited exposure to the literature concerning sexuality in general and child sexuality in particular, the children who actively seek sexual contact with adults are those who HAVE ALREADY BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED. So it is going to be adults who are trolling for child partners, not the other way around. Because only the parent or legal guardian can consent for the child, then these sexual contacts are going to be set up BY ADULTS AND FOR ADULTS. That is assuming that the person legally responsible for the child’s best interests truly has the child’s best interests at heart. It still opens up children to the potential for abuse by guardians who neglect to properly vet a third party adult partner for their child. With all the other bullshit that can happen to our children, is this really a chance worth taking?
I have tried to keep my vitriol contained but I’m not sure I can keep holding back for scum like you. Ank, have yet to answer the question of whether you would allow a grown man to have sex with your daughter, either with your supervision or recorded so you can ensure “no harm is done”. I have a feeling your answer would revoke your gold star status, so don’t even bother answering.
More...
There is nothing I have ever read to suggest that the majority of prepubescent children have the capacity to understand consequences or the future the way adults can, simply because their little brains are still developing. So just because some eight or twelve year olds could drive a car, does that mean it’s a good idea to let them on the road? To make exemptions for them just because a few can? Just because there may be some children out there for whom sexual contact might not be extremely traumatic because those children are exceptionally mature does not mean that generally speaking, sexual contact between adults and children is a good idea and can or even should be tried.
And, wtf? Issues of consent aside, just because a child’s body has the ability to respond to touch does not mean an adult should provide it. Children are sexual beings, but they can healthily explore their own sexuality, without the aid of adults, by themselves or with same/opposite sex peers. Hell, I know I did. I have never been abused in any way, I started touching myself around 7 or 8 and had a couple of playmates around my age (plus or minus a year or two) that we explored kissing and light petting with. But it was all a process of self-discovery, embarked on BY ME FOR ME. I think these kinds of sex play are empowering. But what you propose is not. What you propose is abusive, no matter how you try to slice it. I’d like to see some empirical evidence about how many children who are becoming aware of their sexual selves to actively seek adult sexual partners to learn about sex. From what I seem to gather from anecdotal evidence and my admittedly limited exposure to the literature concerning sexuality in general and child sexuality in particular, the children who actively seek sexual contact with adults are those who HAVE ALREADY BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED. So it is going to be adults who are trolling for child partners, not the other way around. Because only the parent or legal guardian can consent for the child, then these sexual contacts are going to be set up BY ADULTS AND FOR ADULTS. That is assuming that the person legally responsible for the child’s best interests truly has the child’s best interests at heart. It still opens up children to the potential for abuse by guardians who neglect to properly vet a third party adult partner for their child. With all the other bullshit that can happen to our children, is this really a chance worth taking?
I have tried to keep my vitriol contained but I’m not sure I can keep holding back for scum like you. Ank, have yet to answer the question of whether you would allow a grown man to have sex with your daughter, either with your supervision or recorded so you can ensure “no harm is done”. I have a feeling your answer would revoke your gold star status, so don’t even bother answering.
372
I'm new here. This is my first and only visit to Savage Love. (I'm only here because of a reference to Dan by Dear Prudence.) I have had the free time and lack of judgement to have spent the last 4 hours or so reading every comment. Here's what I think:
EricaP: Please shut up. Another poster said it best, "The EricaP Show." Really. If your kinky union was really so blissful and perfect, I suspect you'd be spending more time actually having sex and less time talking about it.
Sissoucat and Lorran: Much love and healing to you. Thank you for putting eloquent words to the pain and shame I have suffered with for so long.
Xam@303: The only voice of reason, the only ray of reality, thank you for calling out Ank. Not that anyone else noticed, sadly. But you are my hero.
Ankylosaur: You Brazilian/Dutch professorial pedophile. You are the stuff of countless nightmares, past and future. An ankylosaur was an herbivorous dinosaur...perhaps velociraptor would have been a more appropriate moniker for a predator such as yourself. Thanks to you I now know exactly what "squicked" feels like. Please do the collective children and former children of the world a favor and kill yourself immediately. Now, so that I will be able to go to sleep tonight. Or at least possibly some night in the future.
EricaP: Please shut up. Another poster said it best, "The EricaP Show." Really. If your kinky union was really so blissful and perfect, I suspect you'd be spending more time actually having sex and less time talking about it.
Sissoucat and Lorran: Much love and healing to you. Thank you for putting eloquent words to the pain and shame I have suffered with for so long.
Xam@303: The only voice of reason, the only ray of reality, thank you for calling out Ank. Not that anyone else noticed, sadly. But you are my hero.
Ankylosaur: You Brazilian/Dutch professorial pedophile. You are the stuff of countless nightmares, past and future. An ankylosaur was an herbivorous dinosaur...perhaps velociraptor would have been a more appropriate moniker for a predator such as yourself. Thanks to you I now know exactly what "squicked" feels like. Please do the collective children and former children of the world a favor and kill yourself immediately. Now, so that I will be able to go to sleep tonight. Or at least possibly some night in the future.
374
@369: How about this: Rick Santorum's new definition could be "a frothy mixture of fecal matter and ejaculate still rotting in the closet"?
375
@360 Thanks for your testimony. Your mother is a really brave person, and many props to her for not making a secret out of what she suffered.
It seems only her life suffered from what she endured, not yours - at least this is how I read it - and that gives me more hope than anything. Maybe my children will have a chance at normal life too.
It seems only her life suffered from what she endured, not yours - at least this is how I read it - and that gives me more hope than anything. Maybe my children will have a chance at normal life too.
376
@ Ank
You are pleased to say that what my father did to me is repugnant - because I, as an adult, describe what I remember feeling as a child...
But what my father did to me was not even sex and there was another adult watching (my mother), who did not identify it as anything sexual (reason below).
At the same time you've kept on advocating child + adult + sex with another adult watching... In many ways you've just behaved in this thread as a common troll.
Triggering - for children of survivors, whose mothers have protected them, a case of one who could not.
My mother's own traumatic experience had lead her to believe that adults who would rape children were unrelated, from a different ethnic group, and only doing it as a form of cultural warfare. Other motivations are just too hard for her to even think about, even now ; if a pedophile is in the news, she snaps out of the obvious issue (the child's hurt) and finds something else to be angry about (the child's parents' hurt, the hurt of an innocent man who had been falsely accused).
She's kept it a secret from everyone until I asked her in a meltdown, at 30, how could she have been so blind.
She herself discovered that what had been done to her at 6 was rape when she was taught human reproduction in college (in the 50s). The man was a trusted family friend ; she was often taunted by her parents as to why she had suddenly stopped wanting to go for walks along with him in the countryside. He had told her he would kill her if she said anything.
She let me spend entire afternoons unsupervised with adult men in the countryside (happily nothing ever happened).
She made me promise to never say anything until her elderly mother had died. She wanted her never to know, never to suspect. She kept the secret to the point of blinding herself in the process. Thus she allowed me to be abused.
Even today, she considers her rape as an injury to her parents' ethnic group, as a private shame that somehow befall her ; I didn't have the heart to tell her that if this guy had been able to have enough of an erection to rape a 6-year-old, he had probably raped many more girls of his own ethnic group.
More...
You are pleased to say that what my father did to me is repugnant - because I, as an adult, describe what I remember feeling as a child...
But what my father did to me was not even sex and there was another adult watching (my mother), who did not identify it as anything sexual (reason below).
At the same time you've kept on advocating child + adult + sex with another adult watching... In many ways you've just behaved in this thread as a common troll.
Triggering - for children of survivors, whose mothers have protected them, a case of one who could not.
My mother's own traumatic experience had lead her to believe that adults who would rape children were unrelated, from a different ethnic group, and only doing it as a form of cultural warfare. Other motivations are just too hard for her to even think about, even now ; if a pedophile is in the news, she snaps out of the obvious issue (the child's hurt) and finds something else to be angry about (the child's parents' hurt, the hurt of an innocent man who had been falsely accused).
She's kept it a secret from everyone until I asked her in a meltdown, at 30, how could she have been so blind.
She herself discovered that what had been done to her at 6 was rape when she was taught human reproduction in college (in the 50s). The man was a trusted family friend ; she was often taunted by her parents as to why she had suddenly stopped wanting to go for walks along with him in the countryside. He had told her he would kill her if she said anything.
She let me spend entire afternoons unsupervised with adult men in the countryside (happily nothing ever happened).
She made me promise to never say anything until her elderly mother had died. She wanted her never to know, never to suspect. She kept the secret to the point of blinding herself in the process. Thus she allowed me to be abused.
Even today, she considers her rape as an injury to her parents' ethnic group, as a private shame that somehow befall her ; I didn't have the heart to tell her that if this guy had been able to have enough of an erection to rape a 6-year-old, he had probably raped many more girls of his own ethnic group.
378
Actually, research does not support the notion that castration reduces pedophelia. You can never change your attractions, only teach your brain to avoid engaging in behavior that can hurt others. Learn the child will be hurt and traumatized by the act , rather than receive the attention as is meant by the person who is attracted to kids. I suggest he read books on the pain children have lived with all their lives as a result of sex with adults. this is what group therapy ordered for sex offenders offers in the USA. effective to reduce recidivism after 10 to 15 years of treatment. Don't hate someone wise enough to be self aware.
379
@376, this has been pointed out to me, sissoucat, as you have certainly seen in other posts here. I certainly wish I had thought of the idea of giving my e-mail address here and asking those interested to write to me instead and pursue the discussion there, so that those whose memories might be triggered by the discussion would be safe. I am sorry this happened this way, and that you got the impression I behaved like a troll. I repeatedly attempted to frame my ideas respectfully and with proper attention to logics and detail; but this was clearly not enough.
380
@356(Vortex), I'd certainly be open to the idea that something other than harm (to self or others) might be logically important while deciding whether a certain action should or should not be permitted. What do you have in mind?
In the absence of something other than harm, I think my conclusion holds (since harm being the main factor is the premise, the conclusion is unavoidable; as you noticed, you'd have to attack the premise to invalidate the argumen). But I do remain open. What, other than harm, do you have in mind?
In the absence of something other than harm, I think my conclusion holds (since harm being the main factor is the premise, the conclusion is unavoidable; as you noticed, you'd have to attack the premise to invalidate the argumen). But I do remain open. What, other than harm, do you have in mind?
381
CWIA, there is hope.
I was in a similar situation: had intense fantasies about incest and child abuse, never touched a child, watched a bunch of child porn back when the web was wilder. I found a therapist who helped me deal with the intense fear and shame I had, which led to having some compassion for myself and the ability to see these desires and fears more clearly. With some acceptance the monster on my back amazingly lost its power. I also started taking SSRIs which helped with my depression and obsessive thoughts. That and the side effect of a lowered libido helped break the cycle of feeling bad, wanting distraction, masturbating to pedo fantasies, feeling bad, etc.
Today I'm married and starting a family with my wife. The fantasies aren't gone --- I get off on uneven power dynamics --- but these days I explore them with consenting adults, and I have no fear that I will ever touch a child.
Everyone is different, and I can't know what makes up your particular situation, but I highly recommend therapy as the first step to dealing with your demons.
Good luck!
I was in a similar situation: had intense fantasies about incest and child abuse, never touched a child, watched a bunch of child porn back when the web was wilder. I found a therapist who helped me deal with the intense fear and shame I had, which led to having some compassion for myself and the ability to see these desires and fears more clearly. With some acceptance the monster on my back amazingly lost its power. I also started taking SSRIs which helped with my depression and obsessive thoughts. That and the side effect of a lowered libido helped break the cycle of feeling bad, wanting distraction, masturbating to pedo fantasies, feeling bad, etc.
Today I'm married and starting a family with my wife. The fantasies aren't gone --- I get off on uneven power dynamics --- but these days I explore them with consenting adults, and I have no fear that I will ever touch a child.
Everyone is different, and I can't know what makes up your particular situation, but I highly recommend therapy as the first step to dealing with your demons.
Good luck!
382
CWIA, there is hope.
I was in a similar situation: had intense fantasies about incest and child abuse, never touched a child, watched a bunch of child porn back when the web was wilder. I found a therapist who helped me deal with the intense fear and shame I had, which led to having some compassion for myself and the ability to see these desires and fears more clearly. With some acceptance the monster on my back amazingly lost its power. I also started taking SSRIs which helped with my depression and obsessive thoughts. That and the side effect of a lowered libido helped break the cycle of feeling bad, wanting distraction, masturbating to pedo fantasies, feeling bad, etc.
Today I'm married and starting a family with my wife. The fantasies aren't gone --- I get off on uneven power dynamics --- but these days I explore them with consenting adults, and I have no fear that I will ever touch a child.
Everyone is different, and I can't know what makes up your particular situation, but I highly recommend therapy as the first step to dealing with your demons.
Good luck!
I was in a similar situation: had intense fantasies about incest and child abuse, never touched a child, watched a bunch of child porn back when the web was wilder. I found a therapist who helped me deal with the intense fear and shame I had, which led to having some compassion for myself and the ability to see these desires and fears more clearly. With some acceptance the monster on my back amazingly lost its power. I also started taking SSRIs which helped with my depression and obsessive thoughts. That and the side effect of a lowered libido helped break the cycle of feeling bad, wanting distraction, masturbating to pedo fantasies, feeling bad, etc.
Today I'm married and starting a family with my wife. The fantasies aren't gone --- I get off on uneven power dynamics --- but these days I explore them with consenting adults, and I have no fear that I will ever touch a child.
Everyone is different, and I can't know what makes up your particular situation, but I highly recommend therapy as the first step to dealing with your demons.
Good luck!
383
@359, Crinoline:
What I don't get is how my friend has volunteered and worked closely with youth in Boy Scouts, for 25 years, and NOT A SINGLE PARENT ever raised any questions. Like, why does this guy, unmarried, with no sons or nephews of his own in the organization, devote so much time with these boys? Have that many people, for that many years, been so dense? Have they just looked the other way, as long as no boys complained?
Maybe someone, and some point, DID raise these questions, but he was able to reassure them or placate them?
What I don't get is how my friend has volunteered and worked closely with youth in Boy Scouts, for 25 years, and NOT A SINGLE PARENT ever raised any questions. Like, why does this guy, unmarried, with no sons or nephews of his own in the organization, devote so much time with these boys? Have that many people, for that many years, been so dense? Have they just looked the other way, as long as no boys complained?
Maybe someone, and some point, DID raise these questions, but he was able to reassure them or placate them?
384
I'm very late to this notional party, but I feel that I have to take issue with ankylosaur's contention that we _have_ worked out reasonable ways of adults' performing non-sexual, consensual, activities with children. I remember childhood as little but a series of adult compulsions, some of which made sense and were no problem, but many of which did not and were not so.
We can't completely eliminate child molestation because it is a corollary of the many occasions in which we allow adults to force children to do things they don't like...some of which even nullparous ol' I can understand are necessary if I'm to live in a world in which there are some manners and other standards. But it is that formal similarity of abuse and normal adult-child interaction that makes it necessary to throw up our hands to say, 'Sex is different,' because otherwise there _is_ no way to forbid one but not the other.
(This is inspired by the near-certainty that we can't eliminate recreational drugs use because it is formally indistinguishable from the basic patterns of consumption and of entrepreneurship that we activelly _encourage_ otherwise.)
We can't completely eliminate child molestation because it is a corollary of the many occasions in which we allow adults to force children to do things they don't like...some of which even nullparous ol' I can understand are necessary if I'm to live in a world in which there are some manners and other standards. But it is that formal similarity of abuse and normal adult-child interaction that makes it necessary to throw up our hands to say, 'Sex is different,' because otherwise there _is_ no way to forbid one but not the other.
(This is inspired by the near-certainty that we can't eliminate recreational drugs use because it is formally indistinguishable from the basic patterns of consumption and of entrepreneurship that we activelly _encourage_ otherwise.)
385
Dear Dr. Cantor and Mr. Savage:
Thank you for your civil response to "Can’t Wish It Away" (CWIA), the gay man who sought help in dealing with his attraction to boys (www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?o…;). Attraction to minors is a subject fraught with misunderstanding, fear, irrationality, and stigma, and is rarely mentioned in the press without demonization, hysteria-mongering, and reference to stereotypes, hence my gratitude for your thoughtful reply to him. You made several important points, including the counterproductive nature of mandatory reporting laws and the lack of resources to which minor-attracted people (MAPs) can turn.
There is an organization that exists precisely for the purpose of solving the problems raised by CWIA and discussed in your response. B4U-ACT is a chartered non-profit founded in 2003 to promote dialog between minor-attracted people and mental health professionals. We work to address the lack of safe, effective, and compassionate mental health care for minor-attracted people who want it, like CWIA. In the meantime, until such services are available, we provide our own peer support group for MAPs. I hope both of you will consider referring people like CWIA to us and supporting B4U-ACT's mission. The vast majority of MAPs who have contacted our organization are law-abiding, and many have fulfilling careers and family lives. With appropriate support, no doubt CWIA can too.
One other point to raise, your response suggests that therapists are required to report any MAP who has or works with children. I am not aware of any jurisdiction where this is true. Therapists are required to report situations where sexual abuse of children is known or suspected to be taking place. Most MAPs become adept at dealing with their attractions without such contact, just as most other people deal with attractions to friends or co-workers.
Thank you again for responding to CWIA with civility and compassion. When more people do that, MAPs will have a better chance of getting the emotional and moral support they need. Then CWIA and others like him won't have to "get through this on my own."
www.b4uact.org
More...
Thank you for your civil response to "Can’t Wish It Away" (CWIA), the gay man who sought help in dealing with his attraction to boys (www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?o…;). Attraction to minors is a subject fraught with misunderstanding, fear, irrationality, and stigma, and is rarely mentioned in the press without demonization, hysteria-mongering, and reference to stereotypes, hence my gratitude for your thoughtful reply to him. You made several important points, including the counterproductive nature of mandatory reporting laws and the lack of resources to which minor-attracted people (MAPs) can turn.
There is an organization that exists precisely for the purpose of solving the problems raised by CWIA and discussed in your response. B4U-ACT is a chartered non-profit founded in 2003 to promote dialog between minor-attracted people and mental health professionals. We work to address the lack of safe, effective, and compassionate mental health care for minor-attracted people who want it, like CWIA. In the meantime, until such services are available, we provide our own peer support group for MAPs. I hope both of you will consider referring people like CWIA to us and supporting B4U-ACT's mission. The vast majority of MAPs who have contacted our organization are law-abiding, and many have fulfilling careers and family lives. With appropriate support, no doubt CWIA can too.
One other point to raise, your response suggests that therapists are required to report any MAP who has or works with children. I am not aware of any jurisdiction where this is true. Therapists are required to report situations where sexual abuse of children is known or suspected to be taking place. Most MAPs become adept at dealing with their attractions without such contact, just as most other people deal with attractions to friends or co-workers.
Thank you again for responding to CWIA with civility and compassion. When more people do that, MAPs will have a better chance of getting the emotional and moral support they need. Then CWIA and others like him won't have to "get through this on my own."
www.b4uact.org
386
Is the solution pre-pubescent fuckbots?
Dan's comment on "sex play" was well placed. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Can somebody explain the difference between ABUSE and D/s that blends into everyday life and involves your children or grandchildren witnessing behaviors so they form negative impressions about the actors?
Dan's comment on "sex play" was well placed. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Can somebody explain the difference between ABUSE and D/s that blends into everyday life and involves your children or grandchildren witnessing behaviors so they form negative impressions about the actors?
387
@386 people shouldn't have to see behaviors that look abusive. The question arises when a couple isn't as discreet as they meant to be. Dan's advice to explain and apologize makes sense to me.
388
As for OK, it didn't sound like she was putting her private sex life out there in front of her daughter. It sounded like she was fetching and doing for her Dom in a way that was totally vanilla, and her daughter decided it was abusive. My mother thinks I'm abused because I set up the coffee pot for my Master and fetch him things when he needs them. My response? "Mom, I enjoy doing for him because it makes me happy, and he does for me too. I'm not abused." That's all Mom needs to know, and that's all OK's daughter needs to know.
389
sissoucat, If you are still reading, please e-mail me. thecuriouskitten@gmail.com
I'd really like to see if I can give you any advice, and if it's okay with you put you in contact with my mother. I had to contact her to make sure she was okay with me giving my e-mail address because it could be traced back to her, but she's stated that if her story can help ANYONE she wants to do it.
And you are right. The cycle is broken with us. Our mom might have been a little too paranoid, but I don't blame her. She did her job and the job that her mother NEVER did. She protected us. As a result, my sisters and I all have healthy sex-lives, we started incorporating other people into them when we were well past puberty, and the one time one of us was even in a situation with unwanted sexual contact (her boob was grabbed when she was 15), she knew to scream bloody murder, and EVERY. SINGLE. MEMBER. of our family dealt with it.
I'd really like to see if I can give you any advice, and if it's okay with you put you in contact with my mother. I had to contact her to make sure she was okay with me giving my e-mail address because it could be traced back to her, but she's stated that if her story can help ANYONE she wants to do it.
And you are right. The cycle is broken with us. Our mom might have been a little too paranoid, but I don't blame her. She did her job and the job that her mother NEVER did. She protected us. As a result, my sisters and I all have healthy sex-lives, we started incorporating other people into them when we were well past puberty, and the one time one of us was even in a situation with unwanted sexual contact (her boob was grabbed when she was 15), she knew to scream bloody murder, and EVERY. SINGLE. MEMBER. of our family dealt with it.
390
@252 and a few others who have similarly accused ankylosaur of "defense mechanisms":
"But is it possible, perhaps, that your penchant for 'dispassionately' weighing the anthropological and historical contexts of CSA are a wee bit of intellectualization and actually a defense mechanism?"
Of course what ankylosaur is doing is a defense mechanism. But defense against what?
Science is nothing more than an elaborate and carefully constructed set of defense mechanisms. Against what? Against irrational thought, against letting your cognitive biases and emotions lead you to incorrect conclusions, against the kind of knee-jerk reactions and poorly-informed guesses. If you think that correct conclusions are better than incorrect ones, you need defense mechanisms against your emotions and biases.
ankylosaur: thank you so much for being such an eloquent user of rationality. I don't know whether I completely agree with you--a couple of people have actually raised good points against you (and me, but that was easier!)--but I know that you're approaching the question with more respect for truth-seeking than anyone else on this forum.
I wonder if people are even still reading this thread :)
"But is it possible, perhaps, that your penchant for 'dispassionately' weighing the anthropological and historical contexts of CSA are a wee bit of intellectualization and actually a defense mechanism?"
Of course what ankylosaur is doing is a defense mechanism. But defense against what?
Science is nothing more than an elaborate and carefully constructed set of defense mechanisms. Against what? Against irrational thought, against letting your cognitive biases and emotions lead you to incorrect conclusions, against the kind of knee-jerk reactions and poorly-informed guesses. If you think that correct conclusions are better than incorrect ones, you need defense mechanisms against your emotions and biases.
ankylosaur: thank you so much for being such an eloquent user of rationality. I don't know whether I completely agree with you--a couple of people have actually raised good points against you (and me, but that was easier!)--but I know that you're approaching the question with more respect for truth-seeking than anyone else on this forum.
I wonder if people are even still reading this thread :)
391
@MiscKitty #220:
"You are arguing that historical precedence is indicative of morality."
Nope, but you're right that I wrote it sloppily. I'm arguing that historical precedence shows a wide range of behaviours, and that believing that current US practice is The Only Correct Practice is as ludicrous as any religion. I'm arguing that if we are biologically capable of reproductive sex at age 12, then that's what we've been doing for many millions of years, so evolution has been making sure that we're adapted to successfully do so.
"Will you conceded that children prior to the onset of puberty are indeed children"
I accept that definition for my discussion with you, and I also have a hunch (though I do not know) that sex with children before puberty has a decent chance of being harmful to them. However, the OP said "young boys", and that could as easily mean barely-illegal as pre-pubescent.
"bearing in mind that a child is incapable of abstract reasoning before the age of twelve?"
Citation? Also, what does abstract reasoning--or any other arbitrary thing that "children can't do"--have to do with this discussion?
"If so, it should interest you to learn that neurologists have found that a child prior to adolescence has better judgement than a child during adolescence."
Yes, and judgement completely goes out the window in adults over 60 or so as well (or 30 in plenty of cases), as we become too set in our ways to incorporate new information and change our minds. Perhaps the truism that "Parents oughtn't be allowed to have sex--it's disgusting!" should be more strictly enforced? ;)
All this talk of judgement is interesting, but it's only relevant if you give me a quantitative measure of judgement that can be applied to all humans and nonhumans, below which the testee should not be allowed to have sex.
"However, that is not germane to the point that I initially made: children are not autonomous."
True on average. But neither are many adults (really, nobody is autonomous--do you even bake your own bread or generate your own electricity or do your own science? At least some of these things are only available to you if you consent to play by someone else's rules.) And children who are granted more autonomy end up being far better adults than those whose autonomy is denied.
My main problem is the arbitrariness of the law, which of course tries to codify right vs. wrong, but which obviously only works on average, which may be overcautious, which may cater to puritanical irrationalities, etc...
More...
"You are arguing that historical precedence is indicative of morality."
Nope, but you're right that I wrote it sloppily. I'm arguing that historical precedence shows a wide range of behaviours, and that believing that current US practice is The Only Correct Practice is as ludicrous as any religion. I'm arguing that if we are biologically capable of reproductive sex at age 12, then that's what we've been doing for many millions of years, so evolution has been making sure that we're adapted to successfully do so.
"Will you conceded that children prior to the onset of puberty are indeed children"
I accept that definition for my discussion with you, and I also have a hunch (though I do not know) that sex with children before puberty has a decent chance of being harmful to them. However, the OP said "young boys", and that could as easily mean barely-illegal as pre-pubescent.
"bearing in mind that a child is incapable of abstract reasoning before the age of twelve?"
Citation? Also, what does abstract reasoning--or any other arbitrary thing that "children can't do"--have to do with this discussion?
"If so, it should interest you to learn that neurologists have found that a child prior to adolescence has better judgement than a child during adolescence."
Yes, and judgement completely goes out the window in adults over 60 or so as well (or 30 in plenty of cases), as we become too set in our ways to incorporate new information and change our minds. Perhaps the truism that "Parents oughtn't be allowed to have sex--it's disgusting!" should be more strictly enforced? ;)
All this talk of judgement is interesting, but it's only relevant if you give me a quantitative measure of judgement that can be applied to all humans and nonhumans, below which the testee should not be allowed to have sex.
"However, that is not germane to the point that I initially made: children are not autonomous."
True on average. But neither are many adults (really, nobody is autonomous--do you even bake your own bread or generate your own electricity or do your own science? At least some of these things are only available to you if you consent to play by someone else's rules.) And children who are granted more autonomy end up being far better adults than those whose autonomy is denied.
My main problem is the arbitrariness of the law, which of course tries to codify right vs. wrong, but which obviously only works on average, which may be overcautious, which may cater to puritanical irrationalities, etc...
392
Historically speaking, puberty did not begin at 12, especially for girls. The data we have, back to 1860, shows it happening earlier and earlier the farther back you go. Now there's some debate about whether or not it went up or down the earlier you go, but the thing is stating "Historically, this is when puberty happened." The fact is we don't have enough data to know when puberty happened for our cave-man ancestors.
I do know, though, that early marriages happened only in the upper classes in the middle ages, and they often did not consummate the marriage until they were much older. That's why even though Catherine of Aragon was married to Henry VIII's brother for two years and it was perfectly plausible that the marriage was never consummated.
And studies of brains show that the brain of a teenager is VERY different from the brain of an adult.
You are right that the law is arbitrary. I'm sure there are 12-year olds out there who can handle sex with an adult. Everyone is different, after all.
But the majority of them can't, and it's just not that practical to judge things on a case-by-case basis.
It's like abortion. Many people argue that life begins in the third trimester. Some argue that a baby isn't really a person until it's six month's old. Practically speaking, we need to set "birth" as the cut-off point because it's the only feasible way to do it. Earlier and you wind up treating women like walking wombs. Later and you risk arguments about brain development, and other things.
And while age may be arbitrary in some cases, it's actually a pretty good rule of thumb, and it's really the only way we can enforce it.
I do know, though, that early marriages happened only in the upper classes in the middle ages, and they often did not consummate the marriage until they were much older. That's why even though Catherine of Aragon was married to Henry VIII's brother for two years and it was perfectly plausible that the marriage was never consummated.
And studies of brains show that the brain of a teenager is VERY different from the brain of an adult.
You are right that the law is arbitrary. I'm sure there are 12-year olds out there who can handle sex with an adult. Everyone is different, after all.
But the majority of them can't, and it's just not that practical to judge things on a case-by-case basis.
It's like abortion. Many people argue that life begins in the third trimester. Some argue that a baby isn't really a person until it's six month's old. Practically speaking, we need to set "birth" as the cut-off point because it's the only feasible way to do it. Earlier and you wind up treating women like walking wombs. Later and you risk arguments about brain development, and other things.
And while age may be arbitrary in some cases, it's actually a pretty good rule of thumb, and it's really the only way we can enforce it.
393
In Response to CWIA,
I am a Psychologist. I don't know how dire his financial situation is, but many therapists will see people for a reduced rate depending on their financial situation. Some clinics even see people for free, depending on their need. The clinic I work at allows people to pay $20 per session. Often, you may see a psychologist in training, who is closely supervised by a licensed clinician. Training sites are the best places to look for affordable therapy. This would require him to do a little research, call some clinics, and ask about their sliding scale fees. I am based in Chicago, and there are many clinics that have reduced rates.
I am a Psychologist. I don't know how dire his financial situation is, but many therapists will see people for a reduced rate depending on their financial situation. Some clinics even see people for free, depending on their need. The clinic I work at allows people to pay $20 per session. Often, you may see a psychologist in training, who is closely supervised by a licensed clinician. Training sites are the best places to look for affordable therapy. This would require him to do a little research, call some clinics, and ask about their sliding scale fees. I am based in Chicago, and there are many clinics that have reduced rates.
394
In Response to CWIA,
I am a Psychologist. I don't know how dire his financial situation is, but many therapists will see people for a reduced rate depending on their financial situation. Some clinics even see people for free, depending on their need. At the clinic I work at, the postdoctoral fellows see patients for $20 per session. Often, you may see a psychologist in training, who are closely supervised ny a licensed clinician. Training facilities are probably the best places to obtain lower priced therapy.. This would require him to do a little research, call some clinics, and ask about their sliding scale fees. I am based in Chicago, and there are many clinics that have reduced rates.
I am a Psychologist. I don't know how dire his financial situation is, but many therapists will see people for a reduced rate depending on their financial situation. Some clinics even see people for free, depending on their need. At the clinic I work at, the postdoctoral fellows see patients for $20 per session. Often, you may see a psychologist in training, who are closely supervised ny a licensed clinician. Training facilities are probably the best places to obtain lower priced therapy.. This would require him to do a little research, call some clinics, and ask about their sliding scale fees. I am based in Chicago, and there are many clinics that have reduced rates.
395
Don't know if anyone is still reading this thread… I gave my 57-year-old pedophile friend an ultimatum similar to the ones suggested here, and some friends & professionals:
Quit working with Boy Scouts, move out of the house with underage nephews, and get counseling - in one month - or I spill the beans about his NAMBLA membership, etc. I gave him resources for help.
Here's a hypothetical. Suppose he quits scouts and moves out of his sister's house by the deadline, but refuses to get counseling? To me, this is a "three-legged stool" and counseling is crucial for him to salvage the rest of his life. But I don't think I can report him after he's done the first two things - that just seems retributive. My wife suggests all I could do is end the relationship in that case.
Any thoughts?
Quit working with Boy Scouts, move out of the house with underage nephews, and get counseling - in one month - or I spill the beans about his NAMBLA membership, etc. I gave him resources for help.
Here's a hypothetical. Suppose he quits scouts and moves out of his sister's house by the deadline, but refuses to get counseling? To me, this is a "three-legged stool" and counseling is crucial for him to salvage the rest of his life. But I don't think I can report him after he's done the first two things - that just seems retributive. My wife suggests all I could do is end the relationship in that case.
Any thoughts?
396
You need to stick to your guns are report him. You can give him two more weeks to get counseling, but for all you know he still has regular contact with children and has learned to hide it from you.
397
@PRD -- good for you for giving him the ultimatum. I think you should stick to your guns. He appears to be a danger to others.
398
There are/have been cultures where sex between adults and children younger than 12 is/was common and seen as normal and healthy - I'm thinking specifically of African cultures where (oral) sex between prepubescent boys and teenage boys (who were considered to be no longer children, but not yet old enough to marry) was seen as necessary for the young boys' development. But I believe this is generally very unlikely to be a harmless activity regardless of culture, mainly because of the extreme difference in power: children tend to do pretty much whatever adults tell them to do and usually also (seemingly of their own free will) what they think their adult authority figures want even when nothing is said, and they also tend to believe what the adults say no matter how preposterous (religion...). Once they have reached puberty this usually changes rather dramatically. I don't think it is a coincidence that the change towards an adult sexuality occurs around the same time as the change from obedient child to rebellious teenager.
399
Wow... nearly 400 comments. And seemingly a tad tamer than the first DS "gold-star pedophile" piece—though I only gave these comments a cursory skim.
First, thank you so much Dan for standing up for many who can't stand up for themselves. Thanks for understanding and communicating what needs to happen for children to truly be protected.
CWIA, hang in there. I'm in very similar shoes to yours, and have been in regular counseling for a while now. (For the record, everyone, I do not now nor have I ever believed that sex between adults and kids is OK, nor have I ever acted on my desires.) I hope you are able to find affordable help. In any case, focus on all the positive ways you can impact society and make the world a safer place for children.
For CWIA and others in his shows, I would also recommend checking out the organization B4U-ACT, which provides information on mental health resources and support for minor-attracted people (also mentioned in comment 385). www.b4uact.org
First, thank you so much Dan for standing up for many who can't stand up for themselves. Thanks for understanding and communicating what needs to happen for children to truly be protected.
CWIA, hang in there. I'm in very similar shoes to yours, and have been in regular counseling for a while now. (For the record, everyone, I do not now nor have I ever believed that sex between adults and kids is OK, nor have I ever acted on my desires.) I hope you are able to find affordable help. In any case, focus on all the positive ways you can impact society and make the world a safer place for children.
For CWIA and others in his shows, I would also recommend checking out the organization B4U-ACT, which provides information on mental health resources and support for minor-attracted people (also mentioned in comment 385). www.b4uact.org
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Comments (402) RSS