Dude, ankylosaur, people have said it over and over again. Let me repeat: Sex is not like playing video games, or choosing an outfit, or whatever other quotidian endeavor you come up with as an example. Sex is PROFOUNDLY personal. It is the ultimate release of the defenses, the ultimate show of vulnerability. It is the sharing of our bodies, that which we only keep to ourselves (or the doctor when getting a checkup, and note how impersonal they keep it for our own good). It is an enourmous leap to make, particularly when you're new to it, like somebody said, and YOU HAVE TO BE EMOTIONALLY READY for it. Children are not emtionally ready. They are still developing. Thus, they are incapable of giving consent for sex. Is that clear to you?

If you were to rush a child into sex (colloquially known as rape) before he/she is emotionally ready to deal with the psychological ramifications of sex, then you will likely incur lasting, perhaps permanent, damage. You say you're a survivor of child sexual abuse. You should know. Reflect again on how it has affected your emotional development. And reading your stuff, bro, you sound like you need help.

Again: Children are not like adults.

@90, plus, here's the thing with the power differential: as far as I can see, this power differential should make all relationships complicated, and indeed it does. In the olden segregationist days, friendships between Blacks and Whites were much less frequent, and when they happend their parameters were usually very different from those of friendships between people of the same race.

But sex is singled out -- sex is the one thing that is "most difficult". My point: this happens not because of anything inherent to sex in itself, but because of our attitudes to it. It's not that sex "has to be" a specially dangerous arena -- more so than family, friends, work, etc. -- for power differentials to raise their ugly heads; it's that the symbolic value of sex to us -- sex as it is construed in our society -- makes that very difficult.

(Note, in passing, how our society is fascinated with power -- part of the reason, I think, why it is so easy to eroticize it and create BDSM sexualities.)

@69

I know that sex makes me vulnerable in ways that nothing else can, and I also know that society isn't the primary cause of this.

Let's look at it from a different angle, and yes, bearing in mind that we are talking about a concept, not about real pervs. However, when I had my unfortunate run-in with the father of one of my friends, I didn't know what was happening, exactly--I didn't know enough about sex to put a name to what was happening. What I remember most was how it felt inside. I'm sure you and everyone else who has been abused will know what I'm talking about. The confusion, the shame, and above all, that awful sick feeling, had shit to do with society--I was too little know about that stuff. It was dangerous by itself, and not because of what I'd been told or not told. I think you'll say this was because of the man, not the act itself. Obviously, I can't really separate them, but I've endured plenty of crap in my youth that involved adults being jerks and unfairly exercising their power over kids, and this was nothing like that all. I know I won't be able to verbalize this to your satisfaction, but it's the sort of thing that's hard to nail down. The most wonderful and the most horrible experiences of my life have been sexual.

As far as your point about animals go: 1) we're humans. We have emotions that they don't, or ones that they don't have in as much depth, depending on the species. 2) We have the power of reasoning/logic, which allows us to believe we are being constructive when we repeatedly analyze the behavior of ourselves and our peers in the hope of figuring out exactly what everyone is really thinking. This means that it can be very, very, very hard for a person to let something go, especially something bad. Animals don't really have this problem. 3) A couple hundred years ago, it would be normal for a couple to fuck while sleeping in the same bed as their kids. Now, at least in affluent societies, parents doing such a thing would probably have their kids taken away from them. Because now we have central heating and cheap housing. Point is, animals do things in a way that isn't so far from what humans have done. But that doesn't mean that civilization is turning sex into something nature never intended; it's just a fact that with things like shelter, reliable food sources and free time, humans are going to try to get more out of sex than the basic fulfillment of our animal functions. Sometimes social constructs exist because they are simply part of human nature, and I believe that there are strong, inherent emotional components to sex.*

*I am not suggesting that all sex is based on feelings, or that non-monogamy is bad, or anything else like that. Just that, generally speaking, people without specific personality disorders will have feelings or one sort or another for a sex partner at some point.

@flang
Great, another troll mustered up the courage to register.

@ ankylosaur come on, fella. Even a physically comfortable sex act that was coerced out of a 6-year-old child can be damaging for the long term (I can't even believe I'm engaging this question). The data shows this. Just because some trauma is "only" in the psyche doesn't make it any less real. Same goes for emotional trauma and even persistent pain that that may (or may not) have anything to do with the way "society" has imposed its expectations on us (your favorite theory). We are not only physical beings. But it sounds like you've dug in your heels pretty permanently here. The only thing I can imagine is that you are coping with your own history by imagining that sex is only physical.

Righto, dude. Let me summarise your argument. Because some theoretical kid out there somewhere could possibly find some benefit from fucking someone twice their age who could (take your pick) throw them out of their house, beat them, starve them, expel them, excommunicate them, rape them, kill them if they refused... because that kid really NEEDS to explore that possibility of the adult who has all these powers against them (because if you doubt that adults have those powers over kids, as a survivor, I really don't know what you're doing on the internet).... we should all consider why sex with adults isn't a bad thing, really.

As for the priest who disrespected your boundaries? Sure, right now you think it was a problem because HE was an asshole. (My grandfather's brother was a priest, too. I feel your pain on that.) If it had been more than him, if it had been six or seven people, you might have the experience to talk about whether it was HIM or whether it was the boundary violations. I can personally say, as someone subjected to multiple boundary violations, that one guy being the worst, that the violations were themselves a problem. That I did not consent. That it did not feel good. Also, my abuser was a perfectly nice guy when he wasn't, and (to others) even when he was abusing me and those of my friends I couldn't keep safe from him. Hell, I knew what a raging prick he was and I still had moments when I liked him. Bantered with him. Gave him the benefit of the doubt, trusted him a bit, relaxed...and then he did it again. Rinse, repeat until age 13 or so, when I figured out it wasn't going to stop and quit doing anything but pretending.

Frankly, what you're doing seems to be the pedophilia equivalent of "rape fantasies mean she wants to be raped". Well, no. Sorry. It means she wants to have a nice consensual scene which everyone pretends isn't. In much the same way, kids are perfectly capable of being sexual with each other, without the predatory power-dynamics involved in being raped by adults. It's not a question of sex, it's a question of power. (Hmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it? What else isn't about sex but power? Right! Rape! Moving on.)

>_> That came out very snarky. Sorry, I'm triggered all to fuck right now.

@mygash, thanks for the response!

1) if children's bodies are different, it means the things they can do and profit from are different. So: do nothing that hurts the child physically.

2) for the same reason gays used to stay in the closet: because negative reactions would ensue. I'll bet nobody would believe a child who said s/he had sex and wasn't harmed ('s/he doesn't know anything yet!'). I'll bet nobody would believe an adult who said s/he as a child had had sex with an adult without harmful consequences ('s/he's lying to herself!'). Besides instigating crusaders like keshmesh above.

And still there seem to be some such cases. A colleague of mine once told me he was one. I've read a couple of articles here and there about such cases. I'm not aware of any research into them, though.

3) because there's such a thing as culture. The fact that the Greeks were OK with (some kinds of) homosexual relationships, for instance, doesn't mean the Romans had to be -- or that Western society would have to be. The Greeks lost, their institutions and way of life were changed -- and the acceptance of (some kinds of) homosexual relationships disappeared.

Certain things that also not so long ago were considered horrible by all Western nations (pornography, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) are no longer universally condemned. The fact that sex with childresin still is doesn't mean it is necessarily inherently different; maybe things simply take time to change.

@101, who wrote:

Dude, ankylosaur, people have said it over and over again. Let me repeat: Sex is not like playing video games, or choosing an outfit, or whatever other quotidian endeavor you come up with as an example. Sex is PROFOUNDLY personal. It is the ultimate release of the defenses, the ultimate show of vulnerability. It is the sharing of our bodies, that which we only keep to ourselves (or the doctor when getting a checkup, and note how impersonal they keep it for our own good).

Yes, and I have also repeatedly answered with something like: this is how our society construes sex. That there is nothing inherently like that in sex itself -- in the mechanics and simple stimulus-pleasure structure of it -- can be shown by the fact that animals, who also have sex, don't share all those problems and complexities you mention.

Sex is not all that complicated, or all that transcendent. Sex is not inherently "the letting go of all barriers" (judging by most of the letters Dan Savage gets, barriers are still quite well and strong in bed) -- this is a romantic ideal, and a good one at that, but not a result of the physical act of sex.

@106, of course. Which is why I'm not talking about sex that is coerced. (The point is that others think children can't meaningfully consent here -- even if s/he enthusiastically consents it's still "coerced"; and I wonder what is it about sex that makes consent so much more difficult to give, especially since we do accept a child's consent to play, say, a game of chess or hide-and-seek, as meaningful.)

@89 (keshmesh), even though I agree Brazil is not "less hung-up about sex" (it's just different there), I have to disagree with your characterization. That's not how Brazilians are. I am a Brazilian myself, and quite critical of other Brazilians (who often tend to ignore their problems). But what you say isn't really true.

@109,

Sex isn't that complicated or transcendent, no.

You know what it is, when it's not consensual?

FUCKING TRAUMATISING.

Look, you say you're a survivor, so I'm giving you something of a pass in terms of good faith. But you're clearly having Issues surrounding consent to this day, to the point where I seem to be one of three masochistically edifying people on this thread telling you why rape is bad, and that there is only so much power differential one can have before all sex IS eventually rape (see masters and slaves, soldiers and prisoners of war, wardens and prisoners, the one guy who has a gun during the zombie apocalypse and anyone who doesn't...) and that adults and children fall, irreversibly, into that space.

You say children ought to have the right to choose.... lovely! It'll be true just as soon as they don't ever have to worry about violent, possibly lethal consequences for REFUSING. In the absence of a right to a meaningful no, there cannot be a possibility of a meaningful yes.

@112 good point.

@110,

So if I asked you to play a game of online chess with me right now, gun to your head, no consequences if you forfeit in three moves or win or lose, no risk of violence unless you refused... and you, being not suicidally stupid, nodded yes and played that game...

You'd be exactly as traumatised as if I held that same gun to your head and raped you instead?

Are you listening to yourself right now?

@110 okay, change "coerced" to "convinced" if you like. And maybe it would help you understand the difference if you considered "informed consent" being a degree of "consent", especially when "consequence" is part of that information. Because you cannot deny that -- whatever the reasons -- the very real likelihood for undesirable consequence DOES exist. The data shows this. It just does.

Okay ankylosaur. I've cared for infants and toddlers with STI's from "games" played with them. Did they consent? Does the child consent when they accept the candy? Is that permission to perform sex with the child?Children cannot consent. Because they don't fully understand. Once they are cognitively able to understand what is being asked of them then consent can be given or withheld.

Lets not also forget the power dynamic. Children rely on adults for food, shelter, care and often their emotional and mental needs. If the adult wants sex, the child cannot refuse without risking some of their basic needs. Its not just a power imbalance. Its a risk no dependent child can afford.

That's why its wrong. Children don't truly understand and the power imbalance. Its the same with people that fantasize about rape. The act of sex where one party cannot refuse, regardless of why, is rape period.

I personally believe the age of consent should be lower, 15 or 16 in some cases. But kids that age can understand what they are doing, and make a yes or no choice. A six year old can't. That's the problem.

@110, Actually, you know what. Let me stretch my argument further.

If I were to hold a gun to a kid's head and demand it play chess with me, thus leaving it no meaningful no, would that not be innately traumatising? Even if the child in question were perfectly content to be glued to its chessboard every other hour of the day?

Let me say it again. This is not about sex. If a child wants to have sex with another child, without either child having to use force (in which case again, lookit, this is no longer about sex), I see no problem. An adult having sex with a child is about power, whether you want to look at it like that or not. Did you step away from and call the cops on your priest? I know I didn't mine. Why? Because it felt quite all right and a bag of chips, how's about we hit the disco after? Or because you were terrified, silenced, knew you wouldn't be heard or believed? I know that's how I felt. Hell, that's how I was made to feel once I DID tell.

This is not about sex. This is about power.

@ankylosaur,

Why should an adult be involved? I said it was wrong for adults to fulfill their sexual needs with children, and you agreed. So, for you, it's not about the adult's sexual needs, it's just about the child's budding sexuality.

Well, several people on this thread have said that sex between children might sometimes be okay. So, that would take care of any sexual interest that is genuine on the part of the child.So, tell me, what does the child have to gain from learning about sex with an adult? Do you think that there should be specially trained coaches for this, or that parents should teach their children? What are you proposing?

Ankylosaur's taking a lot of hits here, but the question is a valid one. It's not just "Why is sex inherently dangerous," it's more--and tell me if I've got this wrong, Ankylosaur--"How much of the emotional danger associated with sex is constructed by our own attitudes toward it, and how much is inherent in the sex itself?" Isn't that what you mean when you talk about what a Great Big Thing we've made out of sex? So the question would be, is sex really such a Great Big Thing, or have we just collectively placed that value by whatever mysterious social process? Which means, of course, that if we have, then that meaning could be changed and replaced with something else. By A Not Big Deal, say. And in some responsible, future world we could take that Not Big Deal and introduce it to children carefully, encouragingly and healthfully.

Me, I can't prove it, but I think that sex is inherently intense and risky and thus very, very important to keep away from the kids; simply changing how we think abut sex won't affect that. That's my opinion Ank, and that seems to be the governing attitude behind the responses you're getting. But like you say, it's interesting to wonder how much we can change by being, say, more generous and supportive of others' sexual interests; or a little more relaxed about the fact that everyone loves to fuck and could we just get over that. Global attitudes to sex are beyond my ken, but I'm willing to bet there are societies that engage in sex more easily and with less fuss than we do in ours. Meanwhile, others feel great shame for even contemplating the act--which only shows that our reactions are indeed strongly socially conditioned. How much and how productively they can be challenged I couldn't say, but I'm not willing to experiment on children.

@ankylosaur,

Since you have attempted throughout this entire thread to disregard every argument about the psychological, developmental, and societal impacts of sex with children, despite claiming to have had a negative experience in your very own past, I will go ahead and attempt to answer your "logical" question first.

"why is sex so harmful that "adult consent" is necessary for it (as opposed to the "child consent" that is sufficient for children to play games with each other, or with adults)? What is it with sex that makes it so harmful?"

Like many people in this thread, I'm a bit astonished I'm even stooping to answer this question, but since 80 comments haven't fucking helped you see reason, here goes. Sex, when we boil it down, is about a hormonal and biological response within the body, a response that elicits pleasure, arousal, and ultimately orgasm. The basis of being biologically equipped to enjoy and successfully engage in sexual behavior (i.e. reach orgasm) is primarily dependent on the maturity of the sexual organs. This is why puberty is such a big deal; it is your body readying itself to be able to successfully engage in sex.

Now that we've covered a bit of rudimentary biology, I hope you understand that a human body that hasn't undergone puberty - a child's body - is not in any way, shape, or form able to handle sexual encounters. While there may be small episodes in which a child might acknowledge their reproductive organs and what feels "good," the actual development of those organs has not been completed, the hormones triggering a full sexual response have not been produced, and biologically the child's body is not physically mature enough to engage in adult sexual behaviors.

Thus, should an adult attempt to engage in sex with a child, there is a great chance of that child being harmed, since, let me spell it out for you again, THEIR BODY ISN'T READY FOR SEX. Someone in this thread has already mentioned the trauma the female cervix can undergo when sex is engaged in at too early an age. A ruptured cervix is a terrible thing, it's incredibly damaging and painful. Hemorrhaging and rupture of the lower intestine can also happen in anal sex with a child. There is also the threat of lesions within the vagina or anal walls if a full size penis is inserted into them; these lesions may also occur since the hormones that help ready a person for sex are not active and the child's body will not be able to respond, thus placing the reproductive organs at risk.

I do hope you understand that harm of the reproductive organs is far more severe than a scrape induced during a game of tag. These are parts of the body that are personal, sensitive, and are essentially cherished. To have an adult selfishly damage them early in a child's life is a tragedy that no one should endure. Now, the very threat of damaging a child's reproductive organs and thus harming their sexual encounters for life should, to any reasonable person, show that sex with a child is indeed a dangerous act. To follow your ridiculous game of equating sex with minors to everyday scenarios, sex with a child is like severely striking a child, or shaking a baby. It's terrible, it can cause lifelong damage physically (which seems to be the only fucking thing you're concerned with) not to mention psychologically.

I could go into WHY the psychological impacts of sex with children matters even more, but since you've refused to see them as a problem (it's society's way of treating sex that's the issue, animals don't have hangups over sex, it's all good!) I'll end this post hoping you understand the severity of sex with minors, and how goddamn harmful it is.

@94,

what is the inherent danger of sex? Isn't it just a pleasant activity? If sex is dangerous, where does the danger come from?

One could just as well say that children can't really have friends the way an adult can -- because they can't deal with all the adult aspects of friendship in our society yet. But this doesn't mean they can't play hide-and-seek and have fun with it.

I'm not saying we should go out now and try to distinguish 'good' pedophilia from 'bad' pedophilia.

The fact that sex with childresin still is doesn't mean it is necessarily inherently different; maybe things simply take time to change.

Your own words, asshole.

Besides instigating crusaders like keshmesh above.

Fuck you.

@83(Ms Hopkins), no problem -- we're all armchair psychologists here, aren't we? :-) And I had wondered how long it would take for someone to suggest that the idea I discussed here would somehow be a consequence of my sad childhood experience.

I could give you a detailed description (I did it elsewhere; I wrote a lot about it when I was still struggling with it, years ago). But the way it relates to the topic I raise here is simply that the Irish priest in question was, well, a manipulative asshole. It was not (non-penetrative) sex with him that harmed me, but the assholery and manipulation; the threats, the lack of concern for how I felt, etc. What was wrong, I think, was not sex with an adult, but with an asshole manipulator. (Are there still some issues, you ask at the end of your comment. I suspect any victim of abuse will tell you that issues always remain. They never really go away. They become, for better or for worse, a part of who you are. But I'm not having a hard time with them, no.)

My point may in some way be related to that event and its aftermath. But here is my standard answer: whatever motivates an idea, it still stands or falls on its merit alone. For its truth value and possible merits, it doesn't matter what the reason why it occurred to its author, or why s/he brought it up, were.

I question the idea that children are inherently harmed by sex. At least in some cases (sex between children, as in the personal experience that @59 above shared) it apparently didn't cause harm. So my point is that the harm that sex in our society may mean to children is more a consequence of how our society views sex -- the expectations, the symbolism, the mutual duties, the gender roles, etc. -- than a consequence of any specific sex acts in themselves.

So, on your points:

#1: the imbalance of power is indeed great, but it is just as great for any activity. Which is why adults don't play games or sports with children the way they play games or sports with other adults. Of course this has to be taken into account. But since we do play games and sports with children, without inherent harm (and actually even with some benefits), we conclude there are ways of solving the problems created by the imbalance of power, so that adults and children still have fun. Why should sex be, per se different? What makes it less "solvable" than sports?

#2 indeed children are still not fully formed: they are growing. Which means that all activities with children have to be done with care, with an eye to the consequences for the child. But again, we do take care of that when playing sports. We don't ask children to perform beyond their capacity; we take into account their behavior, their lack of experience, their lack of awareness of dangers, when playing sports with them; and we lower our own sports performance to their level. There are solutions for that. Again, why should sex be so inherently different?

You put it in these words:

Children simply can't consent to sex w/ an adult because they can't grasp fully what they are consenting TO.

Mostly everybody above has repeated this statement, in one version or other: children don't understand what they are consenting to. And my question: what is it? What is it that they're consenting to, what is so dangerous or complicated about it that they can't yet grasp? My answer: not the physical act, or its consequences and physical dangers (pregnancy, STD); that's not difficult to grasp, and we know they do, since we tell them how to avoid diseases ('don't put that dirty thing in your mouth, or you'll get sick!'). It can only be the construal of sex: its symbolism, what it's supposed to mean, this Big Thing With Terrible Transcendent Consequences that is no longer simply sex, but Sex: That which makes us more vulnerable.

Children are indeed ill-equipped to deal with the symbolic aspects of our society, which are complicated and take quite some time to grasp and feel comfortable with. But this is not the mechanics of sex; it's its symbolism.

I'm not trying to be disingenous, Eva. People react as if I'm trying to indulge in sophistry, and defend some outrageous viewpoint just for the hell of it. That's not the case. I really think it's an interesting question. It's not a "weird desire to rationalize a society with sex games between children and adults" (since I'm not attracted to children, whether or not this will ever happen is immaterial to me, just as whether or not centaur fetishists will ever be able to realize their fantasies).

It's what this particular topic tells us about how sex is construed in our society -- as this dangerous thing, with teeth that could hurt an unprepared child, more so than a sport or game accident could -- that I find interesting.

@keshmesh, yap, these are my words. Did you understand them?

Thanks for wishing me sex. I have lots of it already. I hope you do, too.

Alright, everybody. Let's give up on this guy. Let's pull ourselves from this thread and do something else with the rest of our day.

Hey, I thought "parts" was all inclusive. People, adults and children, have several. Insertable and receptive. Big is bigger than little. I said, girls, men, and little people, thought that would cover MOST sex acts. Yes, I neglected the (statistically few) women who abuse children.

What is sex to me? if the right person breathed in my ear, I'd consider that sexy. We don't have room for this. I was not specific because I figured I'd leave something out. Let's just say, all you and I can think of between us.

Back down. Don't attack me for something I didn't say. Sorry I wasn't more specific so you could launch into me accurately. I also, if you read it all, alluded to a slippery slope argument to the SIZE issue. The EMOTIONAL one- hell, grown adults seem to be all over the board. Seems only right that we let kids be you know, kids, before they get drug into all the other issues surrounding sex.

We are supposed to protect children. They are not adults, and are not equal to adults. Until that power imbalance changes, it is not right to take advantage of them in any way.

@123,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_you…

There you go, have yourself a risk.It's objective and physical and stuff!

If your response to this is "why not have adults fuck boys, then?" then I really just have to wish you a lovely life as a child rape apologist (since apparently the many commenters, myself included, who've stated in words of very few syllables that the issue is not sex but power, and that children can have consensual sex with each other, have not made an impact on you) and move on.

@sharpe0, thanks for attempting to provide a comprehensive answer. The condescending tone was not really necessary, but I understand where you're coming from, so it doesn't matter.

You make several assumptions that are usually not made here at SLOG:

(a) that sex is only possible with the sexual organs engaged in penetrative intercourse, and that this is the kind of sex I meant; both assumptions are unwarranted.

(b) you assume that the absence of hormones means a total lack of interest and/or enjoyment in sexual activity of any kind; this is indeed claimed by some, but by far not by all, theories on human sexual and psychological development; perhaps I should give you some references?

Now: the jist of your argument (like that of many others above) is that, since children aren't adults and don't behave like adults (as you painstaingly point out, they don't have the hormones, and their genetial organs aren't fully developed), anyone who tried to have sex with them and expected them to behave like adults is going to harm them (besides being a rather stupid person for having such obviously wrong expectations).

And that is of course true.

But that is not what I am talking about.

Just as in: when we play sports and games with children, we don't play the way we would with adults. If someone did that -- if someone started playing football, say, with children, as if they were adults -- he would of course physically harm the children, and that would be wrong.

But that's not what we do when we play sports with children. And that's not what I'm talking about in the sexual realm either.

I hope this makes things clearer. Once again, thanks for your interest, and I hope to hear your thoughts on the topic.

@127, yes, but you repeatedly fail to answer: since the issue is power, how come we can solve this issue in so many things (sports, games, etc.), but not in sex? What makes sex different?

I'm not a child rape apologist, by the way.

@127(bu), indeed, we're supposed to protect children. So let's not do anything that physically harms them. You see, even though children are indeed physically smaller than us, it's possible to physically interact with them in many ways without causing broken bones, ruptured skin, bleeding, or even pain. We do this all the time when we interact with them. Sex isn't different in principle.

Ankylosaur,

Do you think your daughter or one of her friends has the ability to give informed consent? Do you think that if she was asked today that she would understand what was bring proposed and the consequences both long and short term would be? Do you think she'd feel safe and could freely say no, to this larger adult? I don't think she can. I don't think she has enough life experience to make that decision at this point in her life. I don't think her brain has developed far enough. And, thus, I think we need to maintain a priori assumption that minors can not give informed consent. That any consent ever offered is one not based on free will but of fear.

I'm walking away from this thread. I can't help feel upset by it. I can't see things your way. We will need to disagree. I don't think a child's brain has the capacity to give informed consent, nor are they emotionally, psychologically, or physically prepared. They may have the resilience to survive, if older rationalize that they can do this for a roof over their head, but even that is not informed consent because a "no" would leave them homeless. I'm sorry that I don't have the words to express what I'm trying to say, even now I lack the words to explain fully my victimization. How sad is that, married and two kids, post baccalaureate education even, and I don't have the words. I just can't participate, it hurts too much.

Take care.

@ankylosaur,

If you're not interested in fucking children yourself (and I take you at face value that you're not), then why this burning need to justify adult/child rape? I just, what's your axe to grind, dude? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just morbidly curious at this point. Seriously, why are you toddling on and on and on this track, when you've been met at every turn with "don't abuse power", instead of "don't do dirty things!" as you seem to keep misconstruing our arguments to be?

If someone asked me very nicely to have sex with them while their bestie held a gun to my child's head, I would fuck them with total enthusiasm and as much skill as I could, if it meant my child living another minute. I think we can agree that that would, despite my enthusiasm/skill/voluntary nakedness, be rape. Similarly, when an adult who has the power to (at the very least) hurt my substantially weaker body, or excommunicate me, or expel me, or make my parents beat me to a bloody pulp on just their word asks me very politely to have sex with them...you're damn right I'd have sex with them, because hurt, excommunicated, expelled, homeless and beaten AND RAPED would be a lovely alternative, wouldn't it?

And yet, weirdly enough, it would. Be. Rape.

@125(floater), that is actually good advice. Basically you guys are repeating the same things, causing me to give the same answers, which you then don't address further but more or less ignore, going back to the original claims. Obviously we're spinning our wheels here. A pity: it's an interesting topic, and quite revealing about the role of sex in our society ('gateway to adult personhood'). But there are indeed better things to do, and it doesn't seem likely that any new ideas or answers to my questions will be proposed.

Bye-bye. Take care! Enjoy your day!

Anklyosaur:

A few things I don't think I've seen addressed:

1) I'm not sure human sexuality can be compared so freely to animal sexuality. Humans are much more complex emotionally, and therefore our interactions -- ALL of them -- are incomparable to animal interactions.

2) There are power dynamics in any relationship, yes. However, adults are inherently authority figures to children. Always. Further, adults have additional powers of thought that enable them to easily manipulate children. It doesn't even have to be intentional or malicious manipulation on the part of the adult, but the fact remains that children are more likely to consent to what an adult requests because (a) it is an adult and (b) adults tend to ask for things from children in a specific way they know will be most likely to be responded to in the positive, and children do not have the complexity of thought or social knowledge to understand that. Therefore, adults have an inherent advantage in getting their way in ANY adult-child relationship...and children inherently have a more difficult time providing true honest, fair, informed consent than any adult would in the same situation.

3) You seem to imply that there would be a value in abandoning the social significance we have "placed" on human sexual interaction. While I can agree that's true in some ways (I don't think seeing a penis on the tele should be a big deal, for example), I think there is value to be found in allowing sexuality to continue to be something inherently personal and intimate...and, by extension, something that causes vulnerability. Our interpersonal relationships benefit from the bonds sexuality can cause, whether society has "invented" those bonds, or not. Can you explain why you believe there would be value in reducing sex to "Just a game"?

4) I can think of lots of reasons I engage my kids in game-playing. I can think of zero I would want to engage them sexually, and not just because I find the idea repulsive. I cannot fathom a single benefit to a child from sexual interaction with an adult. Nor can I fathom a single reason for an adult to want to sexually interact with a child, other than pedophiles, who, if my understanding is correct, would like to have the kind of long-term emotional relationships you have admitted children are incapable of having.

The fact is, children develop at a set pace. If a child is confronted by something before they are physically and/or emotionally developed enough to handle that thing -- even if it is not an inherently "bad" thing -- it can cause a tremendous amount of confusion and distress. My son, for example, is really intelligent and therefore absorbs a lot of information he really isn't emotionally ready to handle, and as a result he is suffering from depression.

Finally, just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that adult animals engage in sexual behavior with their offspring, particular before their "teenage" years? Off the top of my head, it doesn't seem like even animals engage in sexual behavior, particularly with adults, before they begin sexual development (e.g., puberty).

@130 but sex is different, blanche. Again with your sex-is-just-physical schtick... Oh, I give up...

@129,

Yeah, except we HAVE solved this problem in sports and games. I don't notice three-year-olds playing in the NHL. I don't notice toddlers climbing Everest in little adorable flag-adorned walkers. We don't require 3 year olds to take the GRE along with graduate students to determine if the 3yo is going to be able to get into Harvard when s/he's 23, hm?

Kids compete with kids. Adults compete with adults. Adults participate in these activities to the extent of teaching children, which in terms of sex is comparable to sex ed, which (as best as I recall) doesn't involve fucking every kid in the class. I've talked to my daughter about sex. However, I've managed, through some superhuman feat of understanding, to grasp the difference between exposing a child, consensually and IMPERSONALLY, to abstract information about physical realities and coercing said child into those physical realities! I've also talked to her about war, terrorism, child abuse, rape apologia, feminism and puppies, without shooting her, strapping a bomb to her chest, dumping her in a Mormon enclave or having her be raised by wolves. It's not rocket surgery.

You're right, you're not a child rape apologist. You do seem not to have, like, wandered around the park ever, though.

@132, oh, because what I'm not talking about is not rape -- or only in the sense that society would deny children the possibility of agreeing meaningfully to it (while assuming they can agree meaningfully to many other things that are in principle equally complicated).

But you keep going back to power imbalances, guns to the head, etc. when I explicitly said I'm not talking about such extreme situations, and that the natural power imbalance between adults and children can be and is negotiated around in other kinds of activities (games, sports, etc.), but not in sex -- and my question was always, why not? Why is sex different?

We obviously think children can consent meaningfully to some things, or else we'd never suggest them any activities and ask if they're interested. But sex is different; sex is dangerous; and the whole point of my being here was to ask why sex is so different and dangerous. The basic answer was "you lower your barriers, you make yourself vunerable", from which I concluded: this is social construal, not something inherent to sex (since animals, for instance, engage in the physical act without these moral/social consequences).

Bye-bye to you, too. Enjoy the rest of your day.

@125, I'm all for it! Just one more thing to ankylosaur, and anyone who tries to argue his position in the future...

Human beings are animals, yes, but we also have an extremely well-developed frontal cortex that allows us to process complex emotions, anxiety, and experience a heightened sense of consciousness and sense of self. No other animal on this earth has shown the capacity for thought and self-reflection that humans have; it is what has allowed us to essentially control the environments in which we live, to say nothing of experience thoughts, concepts, and emotions that are incredibly elaborate (physics, philosophy, literature). I think we can all agree that the human brain handles thoughts that are a lot more complicated than the thought of your average chimp, dolphin, or dog.

Again, this is all simple biology, learn it!

Given the enhanced thought processes that make up human society and mental complex, I truly hope you understand that throughout history and even in a variety of contemporary societies, sex is very rarely considered just another "action." True, American society and the Western world have put emphasis on sex and, to a certain extent, the "shamefulness" of the act that is unique to our culture. Our society does indeed portray sex as a Very Big Thing, sometimes (sadly) a Very Big Bad Thing if you will, and I do agree that many people's hangups about sexual expression are grounded in this cultural concept. It is why some people freak out over sexual kinks or homosexuality. We, as readers of this blog, generally reject these hangups and attempt to be sex-positive, and I'm sure there are parts of the world that incorporate a much more relaxed lifestyle regarding sex and sexual expression.

Still, the mental aspects of sex cannot be denied, especially when we consider the complexity of human emotions and psychological experiences. Your argument that other animals don't have such hangups about sex is, I hope you don't mind me saying, complete bullshit. You're disregarding the fact that humans have a much more complex thought process than other animals, a thought process that can very much lead to a large host of psychological issues and psychological trauma should something drastic happen during its development. This is why sex with a child is dangerous and damaging; there are many ways in which the development of a child and his or her reaction to the sexual act can negatively influence them psychologically.

No matter how "pleasant" or "carefree" the adult makes the sexual act, there is a physical and psychological imbalance between the adult and child. The child may feel anxiety, fear, discomfort, or trauma that they may or may not be able to articulate, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE ADULT ATTEMPTS TO INITIATE THE ACT. In addition, a typical child may not completely understand what the sexual acts are or their implications. How could they, when their body can't properly respond to sexual advances? This is why, ankylosaur, sex with a child is damaging, both mentally and physically. If you still don't get it after over 100 comments of people spelling it out for you, then there's something wrong with the way you perceive the world, as it's pretty much clear as day sex with children is always going to be not the right thing to do.

Do you have an answer to "why should adults do this?" (my question above at 119, and macavitykitsune's @127)

If we make the question about deep-tongue-kissing, instead of sex, I still come back to: "why should an adult kiss a child in that way?" For adults in our society, it means one thing. Maybe in a less toxic society, it would mean something else.

Are you proposing a society where deep-tongue-kissing is the equivalent of cheek kissing?

Do you see no reason (in that alternate society) for distinguishing between deep-tongue-kissing and cheek kissing, where one is for friends and one is for lovers?

@ 120

I have a friend who grew up on a kibbutz. When he suggested to a younger adult me that sex was just a fun thing, not so emotionally laden as I in my post pregnancy hormone haze was insisting it was, I was furious. Two decades and a lot of learning have shown me that you know, he kinda had a point. Funny thing, he said to me recently that two decades and a lot of learning taught him the same thing. So yeah, it may be a boy/girl thing, or it may be an age thing, but it's definitely a Thing.

So now I have teenagers. I talk to a lot of their friends, boys and girls. It seems foolish to pretend that they are not sexual beings. To arm them with information and safe places to talk and go to for help if they need it and birth control they'll use seems to be the right thing to me. Ultimately I can't tell them what to do, and I didn't start talking to them at any magic age- there were discussions from the time we could discuss. More than anything, I want them to all come to it with a sense of wonder and good intentions. To be good to each other, and never do or ask someone to do something that isn't comfortable and right for them. And to know that those things can and will change. That right there puts them light years ahead of where I was at their ages. But the talks when they were smaller were much more literal, because that's where they were developmentally.

Sex is a lot of things to a lot of people. It seems to be more to more people at sometimes and less with different people and and and- christ, I don't know.

And if I don't know, I can't see that it's easy for a CHILD to get it either. Yeah, that kinda naughty-but-feels-good-too feeling? Sure, you want more of that. But when you're older and you get a sense that maybe it wasn't quite right, being touched that way- it's usually, if it's not the physical ramifications- it hurt, or you were physically harmed- it's the confusing emotional ramifications that do you in.

Ideally, I want to approach sex with an equal. I want nothing to be at stake but mutual pleasure. I don't want to be excessively physically uncomfortable- I don't even want to be chatteringly chilly or raging hot, call me a wimp- I don't want to be afraid, of who I'm with or what I'm doing, and if I don't quite know what I'm about to do, I'd like to minimize any uncertainty about the other person's intent.

So, maybe-because I'm noodling this out on a Thursday evening- it's about trust, and a belief that I'm not going to be harmed? No matter what physically happens?

And I can't see getting there with someone not understanding that, too. And not being in an unequal position relative to me, either.

And I'm a big ol' girl and all, but "merely physical" interactions carry their own set of feelings and emotions. You know, besides the "real ones" for people I care about or the "hormonally induced ones" that all the stuff cascading through my body is trying to trick me into feeling.

How can a child- a CHILD- sort through that, with an ADULT? I just can't see it. The power imbalance, the experience imbalance- aside from my culturally and evolutionarily conditioned "ick" response- it's all a "no" for me.

@136, I didn't say "compete". I said "play with".

Ever saw a dad play baseball with his kid? Or a coach playing with the players of his junior league team? Are they not having fun? Do you think they would rather be competing against other adults in an adult baseball game? Do you think they don't enjoy playing baseball with kids by itself, no matter how different it is from playing baseball with adults?

-_- 137,

If you can't be bothered to read when I do in fact address precisely your point... wev, dude.

Also, if hide-and-seek and sex seem equally complicated to you, you're either a ninja or you have really lousy sex. I'm kind of amused.

And, ankylosaur, stop saying that we are all repeating ourselves. You are the one who can't say anything more than "it's like sports, it's like a game." That one's not working, so try to find a different way to express yourself. You've got a Ph.D.

@kim in portland. Thank you for setting a good example here. As a guy who wishes to god that he'd never "said yes" as a child (my decision was profoundly ill-informed, and so I can't accept ankylosaur's definition of "consent"), I'll also have to take leave, to spare my sanity. I haven't detected in him any interest in learning the answers to his questions. It's gone way beyond the thought experiment that I'd hoped it was.

@ankylosaur,
What is sex, for humans? An intimate physical act in which you make yourself vulnerable to another person. You're hearing that, over and over, from people who are into ltr-only sex (like myself) and people who enjoy experiencing that intimacy and vulnerability with someone they just found on Craigs List, because it is hot. The fact that no one is explaining that sex is exactly like Parcheesi to them is BECAUSE IT ISN'T.

Sex for humans is not like sex for animals. Perhaps because we pair-bond, more likely or in conjunction because we assign symbolic meaning to everything and try to find patterns and make those patterns work for us. People who enjoy sex without emotional commitment have tried to explain to you that they do not view sex, inherently, as something free from emotion, and complicated ones at that. Oral sex and brushing the teeth are not the same. The emotions and vulnerabilities of the first are not analogous to those of the second. Maybe for hamsters or grasshoppers it would be, but that is not who we are. We have complicated group dynamics which we track and for which we modulate our behavior according to who's nearby, we make plans involving life times, we craft intricate stories.

And animals, I believe, do not normally exhibit anything like a large adult and small child engaging in sex. Animals that put a lot of effort into raising young with a prolonged period of helplessness and teaching, like humans, do not spend time training the young how to engage in sex. They rely on hormones to take care of that after the young polar bears or whatever are off on their own, finding other young polar bears.

@138(sharpe0), thanks for the biology lesson! One curious thing about pre-frontal cortices, by the way, is that they don't disappear when we're not having sex. So when we play games and sports, our pre-frontal cortices are also there, you know, with all those complex emotions and thoughts that also permeate all our gaming behavior. Which is why humans also do not play games the way animals play games; we're much more complicated.

And yet humans play games with children. I wonder why that is? I mean, all your complex and quite learned biological argumentation suggests that, given our hugely developed pre-frontal cortices, we shouldn't be playing games with children. After all, these activities are so semanticized and semiologized in our pre-frontal cortices! Now, how can that be... unless we think sex is different somehow? As in, say, construed by society in a way that makes it more dangerous than it really is?

Goodbye, sharpe0. It was good coming into contact with your great expertise and your charming interest in the depth of the human soul. Have a nice day!

@ankylosaur, Sorry if my comments sound condescending, but I'm frustrated since I can't understand where on earth you're coming from with your reasoning. There is a biological reason puberty happens, and there is a biological reason why the human body/mind is so ill prepared for sex before puberty. Lack of puberty doesn't mean lack of interest, but we can all agree that an 8 year old probably doesn't completely understand the detailed mechanics or emotional forces involved with sex, regardless of how openly they are raised. Only when one engages in sex does one begin to comprehend these things.

Years after puberty, when the body's hormonal response has stabilized, a person is ready to respond positively to sex and the brain is most likely developed enough to not be scared or confused by the intense mechanics of it (regardless if it is penetrative or not). A kid can't understand this, nobody could who hasn't had sex or whose mind isn't developed enough to realize what a sexual organ is and what sex is about.

This is how I understand contemporary sexuality today, and why there are laws against having sex with a child. I feel that to engage a child, an individual with far less mental or physical development than an adult, in sex is just not right.

@139et al.(EricaP), indeed the emotions are beginning to soar, which suggests it's time to call it a day. I'll address your questions, because they're indeed interesting. (By the way, I didn't mean you, EricaP, when I said 'you're repeating yourselves'; I meant the people who kept repeating the same points. The need to repeat the sports metaphor was caused by that.)

I really don't know why an adult "should" want to do that. I suppose ultimately to help the child's mental and psychological development (I'm not talking about abuse), if we need a rational reason; but ultimately, I suppose, because both the adult and the child would ideally enjoy it. If either of them doesn't, then, no matter how carefully designed the whole thing is, it shouldn't be done.

Yes, I suspect there could be a society in which deep-tongue-kissing is equivalent to cheek kissing (just as there are societies which think cheek kissing is repugnant). Kissing is a good example of cultural non-universal.

I suspect all societies will have some way of distinguishing friends from lovers by behavior (which is sort of circular: if a society has words for friends and family/lovers then of course there must be some way to distinguish them). But it doesn't have to be the way we do it.

By-bye, EricaP. I hope you won't feel bad about my questions here. They were sincerely meant, and without any hidden evil intentions.

I forgot to address nudity: No.

There are cultures in which family or large group bathing are normal (Japan), or co-ed saunas (Scandinavia), or changing into bathing suits while standing in full view on the beach (Russian babushkas). In none of these is adults engaging in sex with children also considered normal and nothing to get excited over.

Pretty much all societies seem to have an idea of modesty and covering the genitals for adults. (I recommend a look at the New Guinean penile coverings.) I would say most believe some level of childish nudity is fine, whether that's a toddler in a small tropical group running around in beads or an American toddler running naked through the sprinkler on a hot day . Children are not yet seen as needing to modestly cover their genitalia. Nor are they seen as available for some gentle instruction into sex for fun, for all the reasons a number of people have tried to explain to you, physically and emotionally and culturally. While, as Erica notes, you keep saying 'but it's really just like playing football as a family!'

@ankylosaur,

I specifically included a teaching perspective in my answer. I teach because it's fun. It's not fun, however, because I'm engaging my students as equals (you do believe that sex is a matter for equals? You never addressed my point about warden/prisoner sex earlier. If you think coercion's all right, I guess that's your deal and I pity people who seem attractive to you), it's fun because I'm imparting knowledge which means they can engage society more meaningfully in turn themselves. I know what my abuser was imparting to me, and it wasn't knowledge. Also, the difference between sports and games and sex? If you are in fact going to avoid addressing, oh, pregnancy, STIs, trauma, cycles of abuse, all the other pesky problems I and others have brought up, no, there's no difference between sports and sex. This is because if you take away the colour, species, size, shape, sound, personality and identity of an elephant and a plum, there is no difference between an elephant and a plum. Hooray! (Kind of like how when you take away all the differences between rape and sex, they seem identical.)

You're arguing in extremely bad faith, while we've been tearing open very personal wounds and details to deal sincerely with you, you amazing dipshit. I'm tired, I'm angry, I'm sad, and I'm watching people I respect and admire (Kim, Erica) walk away triggered and sad and hurt, and you (and engaging with you) are unequivocally not worth it. I'm done here.

@147(sharpe0), no problem. Indeed it's such an automatic assumption in our society ('sex is dangerous, especially for children!') that it's easy to understand why you should not see where my argumentation is coming from.

I understand sexuality as something that isn't inherently dependent on hormones, erection, vaginal lubrications, or even orgasms. (A kinky BDSM practitioner could tell you about how things can be sexy without any of these elements.). Sex is about obtaining pleasure with your body, pleasure which is ultimately linked to genital organs, orgasms etc., but which gradually fades into other kinds of pleasure. (A massage is a good example of an activity that can be designed to mix sex with non-sex in almost any proportion.) Things change dramatically after puberty in terms of how to obtain pleasure with one's body, as anyone who has gone through it clearly remembers, but it's not like there was nothing there before.

An 8-year-old cannot understand all the social implications of sex, all the things we think and imagine about it in our society (and which cause the emotions you're talking about). Certainly. So any good body-pleasuring behavior involving children would have to take this fact into account.

See, the point is: you're claiming it is impossible for there to be any situation of sexual body-pleasuring interaction between an adult and a child that wouldn't lead to harm.

I'm saying: perhaps not. Perhaps it is possible. And I'm wondering under what circumstances this would be the case.

I understand that you feel this is impossible; that sex with a child is "simply not right" because the child "doesn't understand". I'm trying to go deeper into these feelings and ask myself what lies behind them. Because I suspect that these feelings just might be wrong: that the reason why you feel them is social, not biological.

And that is an interesting question. Or so I think.

@IPJ, who wrote:

Children are not yet seen as needing to modestly cover their genitalia. Nor are they seen as available for some gentle instruction into sex for fun, for all the reasons a number of people have tried to explain to you, physically and emotionally and culturally. While, as Erica notes, you keep saying 'but it's really just like playing football as a family!'

Indeed, but I have responded to them, basically by saying that the same problems occur with sports, and yet are solved. You say I keep repeating it; I haven't seen anyone address the question, and how come sports have the same problems and yet we find solutions? If I have missed something (so many people writing, and yes, with a lot of repetion), please forgive me and point that out to me.

@131(Kim in Portland), I've just seen your post, and it did bring a couple of tears to my eyes. Indeed, looking at how emotions have soared (I've been called a few strange names already, and some people question my motives), I think this all was a bad idea.

My hope was to engage in a conversation about how our opinions about sex and what it means (rather than the physicality of it) shape how we view what is 'wrong' about it -- like sex with children, and what it inherently is or isn't.

But it is indeed thoughtless to want to discuss this when there are people here who were hurt by horrible abusers who did not take their personhood into account. You are the most sincere one with your reaction to this topic, and you really make me sorry that I didn't take this factor into account. It actually makes it easier to accept the reaction of people like keshmesh or macavitykutsune.

To you, and to all others: to hell with my point, truth or falsehood, social influences and the nature of sex. I did not intend to cause you guys pain or suffering, and obviously I have, and I should have known better. I've been there myself. I apologize. I'm now officially dropping this topic, and going out for a walk. The sky is full of stars, which always makes me feel better.

:-(

Dan Savage has taken a much harder line on people who HAVEN'T pretty much openly expressed an intention to have sex with children. How did this letter-writer not get the riot act with those creepy NAMBLA talking points. He is concerned about "loving relationships with children." So wait, does he want to have sex with children but make sure he does it the right way? Does he think there's a right way?

Pedophiles who don't offend deserve support from society to make sure they keep it that way. Pedophiles who are trying to justify child-rape as a form of "loving relationship," as it sounds like that letter-writer is doing, scare the living shit out of me.

As Macavity already explained, because if you take away all the things that make an elephant and a plum different, they are indeed the same. (We share something like 70% of our DNA with bananas, so I imagine elephants and plums are similarly related.) Checkers does not feel just like football, and neither one feels like sex. Unless we strip it down to 'well isn't it a human interaction' which deprives all human interactions, big and small, fraught and insignificant, with no unique qualities which might imply different rules for answering the telephone and engaging in sex and going to pottery class.

And like so many, I am out.

@keshmeshi - never been to Brazil, was basing my comment on a friend's experiences living there.

Ankylosaur, in short, what has been happening above is, you keep saying, "But why isn't sex like football? Why would there have to be an extra problem there, between a child & an adult?" & people tell you why (vulnerability, power imbalance, lack of a child's ability to consent as they don't know what they are consenting to) & you keep saying - 'no, that's can't be it. *Why* is it different? Is it that we've made sex into something mysterious? Does it solely come from our attitudes?', etc. You have asked a question; people have given you several salient points for answers or at least for contemplation, & when you respond to them, it is almost as if you haven't heard them, or what they said hasn't registered, at all. People answering aren't only getting upset as some of them have had negative childhood experiences, as you yourself have, but because it seems as if nothing they said *before* when answering you, has been heard.

There may be a perfectly valid debate to be had about, are we (& by we, I mean primarily Americans, as that's my socialization & experience) relaxed enough in our attitudes when teaching kids about sex, are we instructing them openly without being hungup or creepy; is our general attitude about sexuality a healthy one, in this country. Right now, I'd say no, in many ways - discrimination against same-sex relationships; fights over access to things like birth control & abortion; fascination w/ TV shows & entertainers that's alternately faux-wholesome & pornographic. Lotsa conflicts.

But that's an adult discussion. & sex, whatever form of it, needs to be between age-appropriate partners (folks old enough to know what they're doing & its ramifications - OR - two kids innocently experimenting with one another, where there is no/not much power imbalance).

I dunno what to say other than that. I hope the stars comfort us all. Big hugs to all the survivors of abuse reading this, who tried to participate here in good faith.

I think adult arousal is a key part of the danger.

When adults are aroused, they feel the strength of their own sexual needs, and (even in an alternate universe), they will tend to forget to put the child's needs above their own. That's why it might be possible to let children experiment with each other, because their arousal is less dangerous -- both because arousal is less strong before puberty, and because they haven't established the sexual patterns that mean that tongue-kissing leads to groping, which leads to oral sex, which leads to PIV. When children discover tongue-kissing, they can be happy just exploring that for months or years. If someone has already taught them other patterns, they won't have the joy of discovering it for themselves, with a willing, similarly inexperienced partner.

"People who are attracted to minors like myself are not concerned about offending. We are concerned about loving relationships with children."

The other guy was wonderful, as was Dan's advice.

You on the other hand, should kill yourself at the earliest opportunity. If you need any advice on how not to fuck it up and end up in a ward, please let me know.

@ankylosaur,

From reading your comments and the responses, I feel like your central question is: why do we deem certain behaviors wrong and not others? Why is sex special? People have given you some reasons, using deeper principles that, in part, justify treating sex differently, e.g. readiness, ability to consent, and strong likelihood of emotional damage. But from your comments, I don't think you'll ever feel satisfied with these reasons, because there is no ultimate justification for we deem sex with children to be morally wrong.

It's true, our society sets the bar much higher than others have historically. I believe there is/was an African culture in which young boys, upon reaching puberty, have their virginity taken by the older "aunts" of the tribe, as an educational experience, as well as a rite of passage. Your view seems to be that, since such (perhaps) non-harmful systems of sex between adults and the newly pubescent are evidently possible, we as a society shouldn't have such an absolute view about adult-child sexual encounters, or at least should think more deeply about the reasons behind our objections. However, I think you ignore a major point: every moral prohibition by a given society is, at its heart, arbitrary. This doesn't make them less valid.

Yes, as we've progressed, we've identified certain key principles which underlie much of our morality, and from those principles have tried to establish degrees of self-consistency in our decisions. But as aesthetically and intellectually pleasing as a perfectly consistent moral system containing only a small set of principles might be, it may be an impossible task. In other words, as moral decisions are fundamentally arbitrary expressions of social opinion, it may not be possible to fully describe them in a consistent way with only a small set of principles. Some things, such as sex with children, may have aspects which are unique to themselves.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning things that are rarely questioned, but here I think you're digging too deep, and passing over very reasonable arguments because they don't show pedophilia is wrong in every conceivable circumstance. But if you've ever had a good ethics class, you should remember that it's possible to drill down in a similar fashion to everything we deem wrong, and eventually they all start to break apart at the seams.

Mr Ank - I believe this counts as an illustration of my saying that you would rather be right than kind. What a Tiresian moment that turned out to be.

You can wound me at any time; I don't really matter. There are others here who will give quite as good as they get. But can you seriously remain unmoved by knowing that you have distressed Ms Kim? That is a new standard of sangfroid.

I lack the time or inclination to try to piece together the specifics I'd need to be comprehensive about your points. I'll accept that your friend had non-harmful sex with an adult on the presumption that you accept what he says as credible personal testimony. And it seems reasonable to accept unharmful encounters between children.

To use your sports comparisons, I shall provide a short answer and then I am going to bed and shall not have time to return to this thread for about twenty hours. Adults can play "child soccer/baseball/tiddly winks". Some children can play "adult chess" (raising hand), but chess has such built-in handicapping possibilities that it's just a question of removing the right number of pieces to provide a fair contest. But to give this a different twist from what other people have said, I'd maintain that, in the vast majority of cases, adults can't have "child sex". Now I must go to bed - I've given you a new line; see if you can develop it.

I took a quick peek, and see that, while I was typing, Ms Erica posted something rather similar ahead of me. As I am sure I didn't explain it properly, assume that I am more or less on her path. *waves to Ms Erica*

This is actually reminding me of the debate in *Pride and Prejudice* that never gets resolved between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. In Chapter 10, Mr J, Ms Cute and Ms Kim may recall the question of whether Mr Bingley, should he be on the point of leaving when a friend asked him to stay another week, yielding to such a request was more a tribute or censure of his character, coming to the following point:

"To yield readily - easily - to the persuasion of a friend is no merit with you."
"To yield without conviction is no compliment to the understanding of either."

And now I really must go to bed. Dormez bien!

@19 - Notice that SADBOY mentioned falling in love and developing an attraction to his partner. This doesn't happen with sexual orientation, you don't get gays "developing" their ability to be attracted to women. The other big difference? Gay isn't caused by environmental factors, but the evidence for links between childhood abuse and adult pedophilia abounds.

Anklyosaur - have you ever actually HAD sex? I really can't see how you could possibly continue this broken record if you actually have...

Back from my short walk.

Mr Ven, I think you're right. I've heard the criticism of wanting to be right rather than kind before. Let's say it's more complicated than that (it's more like what you once about your answers to LWs: you not always feel like giving them the advice that would lead to them being happier). My ideal would be to be kind rather than right, but yes -- I often fail to live up to it.

I was indeed very much sorry for having distressed Kim (see @153). I hope she'll be able to forgive me, but I'll understand if she doesn't. Have I wounded, Mr Ven? That wasn't the intention. Please accept my apology.

:-(

@158 (EricaP), indeed. The strength of the arousal was one of the factors that supposedly explained Hearbroken's boyfriend's failure to respect her limits. Interacting with a child presupposes that the adult is responsible, and has the presence of mind to see what is going on and prevent and solve problems as they occur; the adult is 'the teacher' even when he's having fun. Being aroused makes that much more difficult, and presents a problem.

Is it unsolvable? I don't know.

Hey Dan, I have an idea - an entire week of SLLOTD dedicated to oral sex!

Okay. Sports metaphor... go. Most sports have levels and leagues. Teams and tournaments based upon skill, size, age, grasp of the game and age. How about you play hockey with an NHL team? If you can great! If you can't, it doesn't matter how careful they are you still can't measure up.
An adult is in a completely different league. Putting an inexperienced, smaller child in the same arena is inherently dangerous. Not because they can't play, but because they can't play like an adult. Developmentally appropriate touching (sexual type activity at the child's level) ie. Tickling. Hugs. Cuddles... can be done. But the adult generally understands that we are keeping it in the children's league. Full adult sex, in all its varied forms is not for the peewee players.

Hugs between adults can be fun sexy time! Hugs between an adult and child can also be fun, but nit sexual because we are playing at their level. Not bringing a child to ours

@dhawk, what you say is actually quite close to my point, even though you go a little further ('every moral rule is ultimately arbitrary'). So you don't agree with Kant's moral imperative?

My basic point is not really about whether or not our society should go this way. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. My basic point was that clearly there was something added -- something social -- to the question of sex with children, something that goes beyond the mere mechanics of the act, because these were clearly insufficient to justify the reaction. And you did agree with that in your post; so in fact we agree.

Now, you bring up another, more theoretical point, about the consistency of moral systems. I think the crux of your argument can be found here:

[...] every moral prohibition by a given society is, at its heart, arbitrary. This doesn't make them less valid. [...] But as aesthetically and intellectually pleasing as a perfectly consistent moral system containing only a small set of principles might be, it may be an impossible task. In other words, as moral decisions are fundamentally arbitrary expressions of social opinion, it may not be possible to fully describe them in a consistent way with only a small set of principles. Some things, such as sex with children, may have aspects which are unique to themselves.

Indeed, but what are the specific aspects that make sex with children unique in themselves? The aspects mentioned by others all have equivalents in other areas of interaction with children, in which reasonable solutions were found; so they can't be the answer.

(What is the logical/ontological status, by the way, of features that make certain things unique and prevent ethical systems from evolving to their simplest form?)

I suppose it is ultimately possible to claim everything we deem wrong is not 'ultimately wrong' (I believe this is the argument about good and evil being relative, is it not?), but it is not what I was trying to say. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that a naturist explanation to 'why no sex with kids' doesn't work; and that there might be benefits from not automatically equating sex with children with evil and harm.

Basically, yes, I think that "... we as a society shouldn't have such an absolute view about adult-child sexual encounters, or at least should think more deeply about the reasons behind our objections." Thinking about one's reasons, not taking things on faith, expressing them as carefully as possible... that tends to help us escape from traps and find possible harmful aspects hidden inside our moral systems.

Maybe, as you say, the rule of no sex ever with children is one such unique thing which simply cannot be improved in any way no matter what, especially in our society. But then again, maybe it is not.

That is all. Hopefully that is not offensive?

"See, the point is: you're claiming it is impossible for there to be any situation of sexual body-pleasuring interaction between an adult and a child that wouldn't lead to harm.

I'm saying: perhaps not. Perhaps it is possible. And I'm wondering under what circumstances this would be the case."

Then put up or shut up. If you can't come up such a set of circumstances or even move in the general direction of finding them, your hypothesis is resting on a foundation of bullshit. Thus far, you fail utterly even at the task of analyzing and deconstructing any of the social conditioning you CLAIM is the only reason sex with children is harmful.

"I understand that you feel this is impossible; that sex with a child is "simply not right" because the child "doesn't understand". I'm trying to go deeper into these feelings and ask myself what lies behind them."

No, you're not. If that's what you were doing, you'd be just as open to the idea that there IS something legitimate behind them as to the idea that there isn't. That's how real scientific observation happens, with an open mind.

Clearly, however, you're not entertaining any explanations contrary to your little pet hypothesis because you've failed, repeatedly, to engage with any of the in-depth arguments made against it. You're neither open to being proven wrong, nor do you seem to be interested in fleshing out any of your own arguments.

"Because I suspect that these feelings just might be wrong: that the reason why you feel them is social, not biological."

You can suspect that all you want, but if you're going to address this issue with any intellectual integrity, you need to actually (a) identify the sociological constructs and factors that could be creating this problem as a means of demonstrating that it IS purely sociological and (b) study biology enough to be able to rule out biological factors.

My guess, based on what you've written so far, is that you've studied the biology of sex and that of childhood brain development very little indeed. If you'd studied the latter, you'd understand just how complex the development of the brain mechanisms for social interactions really is. Imposing an interaction as biologically, neurologically complex as sex (NOT complex because of social constructs, biologically complex - read a damn book) onto a developing brain is like trying to fire a kit rocket before the glue is dry; it will burn and break because it's NOT READY.

Finally...the hubris and arrogance you are demonstrating in this argument is remarkable. You have a half-baked little sociological theory, one that you seem to THINK no one here has ever considered before. Personally, I considered it and dismissed it when I was still a teenager, and a big part of WHY I dismissed it (before I'd read about all the biology stuff) was because I observed that the levels of trauma and pain suffered by victims of this kind of abuse were high enough and universal enough to be INconsistent with the "social construct" theory. But you're just bulldozing right over that, right over their experiences and emotions, as if you somehow know better. Of course people are offended, of course people are pissed at you.

I'd say @82 has summarized it up nicely.

The issue is the power differential. It can't be ignored, it can't be made to go away, and it poisons this whole thing.

I say this as someone who testified in court as a third grader to put a pedophile away behind bars.

@Ankylosaur:

I think you come to this from the wrong side.

If an adult is not sexually interested in children, why should s/he engage in sexual acts with them? No. (To stay with your sports metaphor: I am not playing sports with my nieces because I am not interested in that.)

Now, if an adult is interested in sex with a child, we need to examine why. Sexual impulses are very selfish. (I am not having a sexual relationship to fulfill my partner in the first place, but to fulfill my own wishes first, and then hopefully his.)

So why is an adult wanting to have sex with a child?
- To teach the child? (If this is the case, we need to ask is that more beneficial to a child than experimenting with another child? I would definitely say no.)
Also, why does the adult want to teach a child sex? Does the adult need that to feel more empowered? In that case: not a good idea, because that means s/he wants to have sex with the child because of the power imbalance. So: NO!

- To fulfill his own sexual urges (pedophilia). Since sex is selfish, this case is all about the adult's needs. So: NO!

Children have sexual feelings. From quite an early age, some children enjoy masturbation. But their emotional set-up is not comparable to that of adults.
Yesterday I read an article about how little children are already able to understand unfair behaviour but they aren't able to react accordingly. Unfortunately, it was in German, but since you speak Dutch, Ankylosaur, you might be able to read it: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensc… )

"@83(Ms Hopkins), no problem -- we're all armchair psychologists here, aren't we? :-) And I had wondered how long it would take for someone to suggest that the idea I discussed here would somehow be a consequence of my sad childhood experience."

Okay...I missed all this before.

You should know that's not an uncommon response to sexual abuse to form a view of sex as simply being an act devoid of any intense or significant inherent emotional meaning or vulnerability. Pretty sure it's a form of dis-association.

@ankylosaur,

I never found what you wrote offensive; I generally applaud questioning the unquestionable, although I understand how arguing in the abstract on this issue could be perceived as insensitive. I do think you are sincere, and aren't offering a defense of child rape. But again, while I believe it is good to think carefully about things which go unquestioned, even if they seem self-evidently true, I think you've reached a level of questioning where all morals break down. (Yes, I believe that all morals are arbitrary, but not that they are meaningless or irrelevant.)

Moving away from the theoretical, there is also the pragmatic issue that has been raised several times. If the potential for abuse and harm is very high, then the best solution available may be a blanket restriction, even if the sharp edges don't acknowledge the possibility that such relationships could conceivably exist with little to no harm. And that practical reality may never change, except perhaps the age at which we draw the line.

People like LFTYA are the reason why it's so hard to establish a system for pedophiles to get help without being arrested on sight.

I agree whole-heartedly w/ seandr @ 166. (See, guy, it can happen.)

I want to go have a really hot shower & hopefully renewing sleep in my fluffy bed, now.

'night, all.

The dissociative element is a strong one, for many of us, I think. I tend to downplay mine, and it's way too easy for me to say it didn't affect me, although it most certainly did. It would be very easy for me to follow a similar line of argument as anklysour -- but the reality is that it isn't a harmless event regardless of how dispassionately one can look at it later. There's no sense in putting any child through that.

I grant you there's some terribly gray lines on transitions -- an 11 year old is very different from a 15 year old, and so on. But I think this is adequately addressed by recognizing there's quite a bit of difference between peer experimentation (within a couple years range) and someone 10 or more years older.

Children get targeted *because* they are defenseless. It's easier to keep them from talking, and to make sure people don't believe them if they do. Disabled children, even more so.

Dear ankylosaur (153 & 164),

We're okay. I'll be okay. I hope the stars helped.

Kind regards,
k

I'm way late to the party, but to add my two cents to the great ankylosaur debate:

I could play football with my brother. I could play golf with my uncle. I could play poker with my grandmother. I could play checkers with my mom. I could coach a little league team. I could play fetch with a dog. I could play hide-and-seek with children at daycare. I could play bingo with the elderly residents of a nursing home.

But in none of these situations would it be appropriate for me to ask someone to "play" sex. There are times when - even if the person involved could technically consent - sex is just not okay. And yes, that's a societal construct. But telling children that sex is equivalent to a fun game would be lying to them, because games and sex exist in very different contexts. In a society where sex WAS considered a game, no different or less appropriate than checkers, golf, or football, THEN children (and families) would be involved, the same way they're involved in those games. And I know our society has some warped views of sex, but I think this is one place where we get it right. Sex isn't a game that you play with everyone who wants to, because it involves more than just the desire to do the activity itself. I can want to play checkers, but I don't have to be physically attracted to my opponent to enjoy it, because I don't need them to "stimulate" my interest in the game. If two people really want to play checkers, nothing else about them matters much in relation to the game. That's not the reality of sex. And telling a child that sex is just a fun thing two people can do is incorrect and a lie - and our society is right to frame it that way.

@laurelgardner, I've clearly offended you, so please accept my apologies. Your post is (I hope you'll agree) a bit too emotional, so I'll only choose what I think is the main point/accusation and react to it. Feel free to address it further.

You said:

Clearly, however, you're not entertaining any explanations contrary to your little pet hypothesis because you've failed, repeatedly, to engage with any of the in-depth arguments made against it.

I disagree. The basic answer I gave to these explanations is that all of them have analogues in the sports metaphor (i.e., the 'the child doesn't understand it like an adult does'; 'the child's body isn't like the adult's body yet'; 'there is a power imbalance between child and adult'; etc.) All of these correspond to similar situations in sports ('the child doesn't know all the rules'; 's/he can't play like an adult [which is basically @167's point above], s/he's not physically/mentally strong enough / ready for it'; 's/he will get hurt if we play "adult league" sports'; 's/he will be afraid of playing with me, because I'm a "powerful adult / authority figure"'). All these things have been solved (we play simplified versions; we don't do rough stuff; we take the child's skills and limitations into account; we 'lower ourselves to the child's level, as @167 put it'; we sort of suspend the power imbalance, in that we give the child a chance of really winning at his level, and don't arbitrarily impose our authority on him; etc.).

I'm not saying the exact same solutions would work for sex. But I'm saying that the idea analogous solutions could be found doesn't seem to be logically unacceptable.

As for why I talk in the abstract and don't give specific situations... Indeed, I won't do that. Look at how offended, and -- worse yet -- how hurt people here felt just because I discussed it in the abstract. If I had tried to come up with some sketch situation in which things would work out, what do you think the reaction would be? Some people would probably claim this is not a thought experiment but just my secret fantasy, that I'm a pedophile myself (which I'm not) and I'm trying to rationalize the abuse of children. Worse yet: some people here, including people I respect, would feel very hurt. (They already do.) So I'm not going to do that. If you really want me to take a shot, it would have to be by e-mail.

@179(Neptune), who wrote:

And yes, that's a societal construct. But telling children that sex is equivalent to a fun game would be lying to them, because games and sex exist in very different contexts. In a society where sex WAS considered a game, no different or less appropriate than checkers, golf, or football, THEN children (and families) would be involved, the same way they're involved in those games.

Indeed. That is the point I was trying to make (or, at least, submit to discussion). Curiously, though, you contradict this claim in the very next sentence, saying that "our society has gotten it right: sex is not a game," i.e., a universal statement. But how can you believe this, and also what you wrote in the preceding paragraph? Aren't they in contradiction?

@dhawk, who wrote:

(Yes, I believe that all morals are arbitrary, but not that they are meaningless or irrelevant.)

Moving away from the theoretical, there is also the pragmatic issue that has been raised several times. If the potential for abuse and harm is very high, then the best solution available may be a blanket restriction, even if the sharp edges don't acknowledge the possibility that such relationships could conceivably exist with little to no harm. And that practical reality may never change, except perhaps the age at which we draw the line.

Indeed. I can easily accept that. Besides, questioning motivations and reasons for moral rules doesn't necessarily imply wanting to change them (one could responsibly want that only if one already saw a better solution); but simply opening one's eyes to the truth behind them.

The pragmatic problem is the most serious one I can see. But I wonder to what extent it comes from the stigma on pedophilia (didn't someone somewhere say that pedophiles play nowadays the role that used to be played by heretics and witches--i.e., the commonly accepted source of all evil?). Again, I don't want to open a whole can of worms; but an old teacher of mine said once that the best solution to a pragmatic difficulty is usually itself pragmatic (and should be open to improvement).

@177(Kim in Portland), I can't tell you what a relief it is to hear that. Yes, they did help. I calmed down.

Some commenters have asked further questions, and I've elaborated above on said questions. If the mere thought brings back memories and pain, then please skip them. Please!

Take care.

seandr @166 yes!

BEG @176 "Disabled children, even more so."
Ye gods, yes.

@178 "pedophiles don't have the child's best interest in mind" -- but it's key to remember that pedophiles sincerely believe they do have the child's best interest in mind.

@180 the fact that you're still going on as if your sports analogies haven't been well and truly debunked means that you have a block around this matter which you should take up with either (a) a good therapist, or (b) an NHL hockey team (thanks, @167)

(@184, I should have said: some pedophiles who act on their desires sincerely believe they have the child's best interest in mind. Obviously some pedophiles don't act on their desires, and some are happy to be abusive...)

@170(BEG), and my question about this (already to @82 above) is: but how come this power differential doesn't power all interactions between children and adults? How come the fact that the adult can always stop the game and say 'it's time to go eat / sleep / take a shower now' (i.e., the adult is the authority figure and calls the shots) doesn't necessarily poison games and play between adults and children? (My guess: because we've found working solutions to them.)

@170, I meant to say: 'how come this power differential doesn't POISON all interactoins...' Sorry for the typo.

@176, the dissociative element shouldn't be downplayed; and indeed what happens to you in a very true sense never goes away, you simply learn how to deal with it and incorporate it into who you are. Like all bad experiences in life. But no, I don't think this is my motivation for thinking about the topic. It is there, somewhere, but I think the real motivation for me is that I have a 'fetish for the truth.' I want to see what's behind the matrix, as it were.

@184(EricaP), and I've offered several reactions to the criticism of the sports metaphor (the latest in @180), which I think have gone unheeded.

@167 is actually a good reason why I think the sports metaphor is actually not bad. As s/he observed, we thoroughly modify our sports behavior when dealing with children: we certainly don't play with them with the Adult League rules. Likewise for sex: things are scaled all the way down to the child's level.

I suspect the basic problem is that people think I mean I'm saying it's OK to (as @167 put it) include children in "Full adult sex, in all its varied forms", which indeed "is not for the peewee players." As if I were saying, 'throw the kid into the arena of sex, and tell him/her to swim,' which I'm not. The criticism by @171(migrationist) above is actually closer to criticizing what I was actually talking about (certainly not "Full adult sex, in all its varied forms" -- even adults don't start their sex lives like that!). I'm responding to him below.

"We are concerned about loving relationships with children."

No you are not....No you are monsters...this is what the person who molested me between the age of 6 and 10 and eventually raped at 12 said....until the age of 17 when he lost any interest in me because i was becoming a man.... and presented the whole thing as a game that "adults" engage into..
At 52 the trauma is still there... and with all the negative impact of that dreadful experience. I only regret one thing not to have killed myself back then.....believing that things would get better.....it did not to the extent of my expectations (Sorry Dan) (loving long term relationship, increased self confidence etc....). I never forget that I was thrown without consent into an adult's world and deprived of my innocence. No Ankylosaur ......No it is forbidden games, No . No. No

@189 you claim to have argued against your critics, but that's not true:
@180 you said "All these things have been solved" plus a whole list of things that don't address questions like the one about arousal making adults unreliable, which you agreed @165 was difficult: "Is it unsolvable? I don't know." But then you continue as if it has been solved.

You are not interested in the truth; you are interested in finding ways to support a delusion.

@Ankylosaur
Other questions to ask:
Do children even want to have sex with adults? While the children I know might masturbate and play doctor with their peers (huge variation between children), I haven’t ever seen behavior that looked like sexual interest in adults.
Do children benefit from sexual play with adults?
From playing games and sports with adults, they learn techniques and strategies. Do they need that for sex? I say no. A fulfilling sex life is more about knowing what you want and enjoy, being able to communicate that, being able to communicate your limits, listening to your partner, accepting your partner’s limits, than about knowing the best technique.
Children can learn what they want and enjoy by exploring their bodies alone and with peers- no adults needed. All the communication skills and empathy, they can be taught in none-sexual contexts.
So, in my opinion, there is no benefit to children from sex with adults, but lots of possible pitfalls and dangers.
I live in Germany, where the legal age of consent is 14, the same age as for criminal liability (and as to start working). It seems more in tune with brain development to say, you are able to assume responsibility for yourself now in most ways, then to say: at 12 you are able to know if you commit a crime, but only at 18 you are able to decide if you want to have sex.

@171, thanks for the Spiegel link. (I actually also speak German; I learned Dutch by basically changing most of my German into Dutch, so now I can still read German but not speak the way I used to.)

Most people don't engage in sports with children -- in fact, many people (as I remember from another comments thread in this site) are actually annoyed at children and their 'whimsical' behavior and would rather have nothing to do with them.

But at least some (maybe many) people actually enjoy interacting with children. Some of them even enjoy raising them. Why is this the case? Given all the problems inherent to interacting with children; given that children can't give you the kind of validation and happiness that you get from adult relationships (friendships, loves, etc.); and given that in fact at least some people don't want to have anything to do with children, why should any of us find it good, even fun, to interact with them?

And yet we do. To some people, playing with children is fun, in a way that is totally different from playing with adults. In some sense, it's a totally different experience, and people can and do have all kinds of opinions about it.

I assume that the basic motivation for a person to engage in any way with a child (barring cases of professional obligation, legal duties, etc.) is indeed that it is fun.

So, in the case of sex, you ask: why would an adult want to have sex with a child? Your suggestions sound good to me. To teach the child? So that's a person who enjoys teaching. OK. Indeed, as you suggest, one should ask if this is beneficial to the child. Since the child is the weaker, more defenseless of the two, his/her safety must be the first and foremost concern. So, can this be beneficial to the child? Your answer is a resounding no. Mine is a less resounding "I don't know. Maybe." Teaching-by-doing works in other areas (language learning jumps to mind); it might work here as well, though I'm not an expert in didactics and don't know how exactly to tackle this task.

Also, it is important to know why the adult wants to teach the child sex: there could be ulterior motives (ultimately abusive) that one certainly wants to avoid. As you say, if the person just enjoys the power imbalance and likes to be obeyed, this is going to be a bad idea (just like, in general, teachers who teach only because they like to be authority figures -- the king/queen of the classroom, as it were -- are also a bad idea.) I'd imagine that, as in the case of other kinds of teaching, the OK motivation would be: to allow the child to grow in this area, to give him/her the benefit of the adult's experience, to help avoid mistakes/errors, to watch and guide the child's development -- the kind of thing that teachers who love to teach enjoy.

Now, suppose the person doesn't want to play sports with a child in order to teach the child, but simply because s/he enjoys playing sports with children: for some reason, they're more fun for him/her than playing games or sports with other adutls. That is a different, and more troublesome, motivation, since it doesn't guarantee that (a) the adult knows what s/he is doing, (b) the adult understands children, their world and their needs (beyond the mere game playing), (c) the adult even cares about the effect of playing with the child on the child. In other words, this person has a good chance of being selfish, and thus forcing the child to play a certain game with him/her may indeed be abusive. (An old uncle of mine, who used to take me to soccer matches just because he enjoyed watching them and thought that I should, too, since it's "obviously such a beautiful sport", is probably part of the reason why I really don't like soccer, despite being Brazilian.)

But that is not necessarily the case. There are people who like to interact/play with children because they find it fun, yet are not selfish: they incorporate elements of the teaching motivation above, and they take into account the child's feelings and reactions. Usually they also care about the child (they're "friends"), know the parents (if they aren't a parent themselves, or a relative), and like to help. They tend to become a part of the child's life.

I suspect -- though I can't offer you proof -- that there are people who like sex with children, yet are not selfish, in the same way those people I describe who like to play with children but are not selfish.

You claim that sex is inherently selfish. I'd say instead that human beings are inherently selfish: it is not difficult to claim that everything we do is "for ourselves" (we love the feeling of being altruistic). I don't think sex is especially selfish, when compared with other activities. (Eating is also selfish; We always eat 'for ourselves,' not for others. Hunger is also an urge, and a stronger one than sex. It doesn't follow from that that we're necessarily going to steal food from children every meal time, when hunger returns. Some people would, of course, steal lolipops from children and eat them; but these are not the people I'm talkign about.)

As you point out, children do have sexual feelings, but they are very different from adult feelings. Likewise, they also want friends, and fun, and interesting things to do, but they don't behave like adults in any of these areas. Children are different from us. It doesn't mean that we can't interact with them in all these areas in a way that isn't harmful, and is even fun, to the kid, and to the adult. Again, I offer the idea that this is in principle also possible with sex; it's the way our societies construe sex, and the symbolism and the rules built around it, that tend to reduce this possibility to zero. Or so it seems to me.

@EricaP,

you claim to have argued against your critics, but that's not true:

Why not? I've certainly addressed their points.

you said "All these things have been solved"

And for sports, I indeed think have been. Do you disagree?

about arousal making adults unreliable, which you agreed @165 was difficult: "Is it unsolvable? I don't know." But then you continue as if it has been solved.

Not exactly. I'm denying the automatic assumption that it is unsolvable. Adults can control their emotions, and they can think ahead; they don't have to act impulsively and let everything happen on a whim, as many people pointed out when discussion the behavior of Heartbroken's boyfriend, who was rightfully chastised for not having done so, for having let his arousal dictate his whole behavior.

It is difficult. But it's not impossible. Ethical sex, which takes the needs of the other into account, which is not simply arousal-arousal-arousal, is possible. (Just as playing sprots without thinking all the time about winning is also possible.) Which is my (implicit) answer to that comment.

You are not interested in the truth; you are interested in finding ways to support a delusion.

Erica, I'm sorry if I'm making you angry: that's not my intention. Maybe Mr Ven above is right and I'm again trying to be right, not kind.

ankylosaur, you have often been an insightful and valuable contributor here. On the subject of pedophilia, however, you are being disingenuous to the point of stupidity and offense. You keep asking why sex is a "Big Important Thing With Lots of Consequences" - do you really not get that sex IS a fucking Big Important Thing With Lots of Consequences? The possibilities include babies, STI's, and intense emotional bonding or trauma. I think other commenters are right on target with the issue of dissociation - if you are incapable of seeing the distinction between sex and sports, you may need professional help.

Sex is NOT the same as playing chess or choosing what outfit to wear. The fact is, it doesn't matter if your daughter can give "meaningful" consent to chess or not, because chess is not an inherently dangerous activity. But no, she can't give meaningful consent, because if you insisted that she play chess with you, she would have to do so. And she can't give meaningful consent to sex, because she isn't able to make an informed decision about the consequences. I sincerely hope that you are giving her a better example than you are setting here.

Yes, the distinction between "minor" and "adult" is a vague and arbitrary one. Yes, it's easy to think of examples (an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old) that are technically "statutory rape" but are probably relatively harmless and reasonably consensual. Yes, it's possible and not at all unusual for minors to have sexual experiences with each other without any negative fallout. And yes, the age of consent in the US is probably higher than it needs to be, for many people at least.

But you need to drop this line of questioning, because it is really not painting a positive picture of your mental health.

@Ankylosaur:

Some of the points you raise here, I've already anticipated and answered one post above. Especially why I think that children don't benefit from sex play with adults.
Please read the Spiegel-Link. It illustrates why children may rationally understand that they are treated unfairly but are still unable to refuse, even if the other person is another child (it's not about sex but money, but the findings might translate well into all areas of a child's life).

This underscores the feeling of most people on this thread, that children can not give meaningful consent. If they do something that they find unfair because their brain isn't developed far enough yet to reject an unfair proposal, how are they supposed to give informed consent?

The other thing about your argumentation that I disagree with, is the whole concept of sex being taught. Sex is something to be discovered. (EricaP put it quite nicely above.) And in my opinion, it is best to discover with someone equal, and not someone much more experienced who is eager to teach.

@192, interesting questions. Here are some of my answers, plus anecdotal evidence.

Do children have interest in adult sex? Remembering my own life as a 7-, 8-year old, I would say, definitely, yes, because everything grownups do (work, talk, tea parties, etc.) seems inherently interesting. An anecdote: my 9-year-old daughter has already learned about sex (my wife and I read the Dutch age-appropriate book with her about a year ago, etc.). It turned out she had heard a lot (pretty much everything) from other chiildren at school already; it would seem children talk about that. At one point, while reading the book, she directly asked us if we did that. We said, yes. She immediately answered, "I want to watch you guys do it." -- something neither I nor my wife were prepared for. We didn't know what to say. She insisted on it for several weeks, with my wife gently refusing and telling her 'it is a little complicated, people feel ashamed, it's not for your age, wait a little,' and me supporting her. Eventually she gave in and turned her attention to other matters.

Of course, her interest was probably more motivated by curiosity about 'one more strange thing grown-ups do', not so much sexual feelings. But I don't think the latter were entirely absent either. It's all a continuum.

Do children benefit from sexual play with adults? Yes, on the technique and strategy realm, as you said about sports. They may also learn something about communicating and finding out what they like (or at least realizing that finding out what they like will be important later on), but that may be a little too complicated. Indeed, good sex is mostly about communication, but technique and strategy are not nothing either -- judging by the number of very popular books dedicated to filling people's gaps in the technique department.

In the Netherlands, where I live, children are required to learn to swim, which is defined as a set of techniques and skills -- there's a list of things they should be able to do in a swimming pool at the required level ('zwemdiploma's A, B en C'). Biking is also carefully taught to children here, though traditionally by the parents, not by a 'zwemschool'. Even though these activities certainly transcend the skills and techniques, clearly skills and techniques matter.

Can children always learn what they want and enjoy by exploring their bodies alone? I've heard from several women (EricaP here is one of them) that women often have difficulties in finding what exactly they like or don't like; some (many?) even never masturbate. Society even still sort of expects them, apparently, to be very unaware of what it is they like or don't like ('the guy will guess it, it's his job'). And even men, even when they do find things they like (it's kinda difficult to miss the penis), can develop wrong or non-productive habits (Dan Savage talks about the 'death grip' caused by too much very specific masturbation that makes it difficult for some men to have an orgasm with a women later on in life.). Wouldn't it be beneficial to help children avoid these pitfalls?

Of course, there are pitfalls and dangers of their own in sex between children and adults. It's not a no-brainer -- far from that. But I don't see that it's an unsolvable puzzle either.

@195(Chase), The fact is, it doesn't matter if your daughter can give "meaningful" consent to chess or not, because chess is not an inherently dangerous activity. But no, she can't give meaningful consent, because if you insisted that she play chess with you, she would have to do so.

Indeed. And if I insisted that she play chess with me with no reason other than my personal amusement, that would indeed be abusive (see my uncle taking me to soccer matches). I'd be against that. Chess with children has to have the interest of the child as a strong component: it cannot simply be "for me." I'd imagine sex with children could be like that.

I think what I'm getting at here is: there is a distinction between "authority" and "abuse of authority". Because we refrain from abusing authority when dealing with children, we can give them meaningful room for decisions, at their level, and compatible with their skills. People here say that this level and skills excludes any kind of sexual interaction, no matter how mild. I'm not convinced. Children can do (e.g., in playgrounds) things that are often more physically demanding than sex, and with some potential for physical harm, too.

And she can't give meaningful consent to sex, because she isn't able to make an informed decision about the consequences. I sincerely hope that you are giving her a better example than you are setting here.

I have no interest in sex with children, and I'm certainly not going to make experiments with her. Thought experiments are thought experiments, not full-fledged recipes for success. I'm discussing a theoretical topic, not telling people how to raise children.

The question of not giving meaningful consent goes back to understanding the consequences. Yes, a child is less able to understand them than an adult, but this is true of everything, not simply sex. It would be the adult's responsibility in this case to make sure the child is safe and sound, just as it is the adult's responsibility to make sure the child is not drowning in the swimming pool, or that no bad accidents when the kids play basketball -- at least as far as the physical consequences go.

It's the socio-emotional consequences that really make this a near-impossible task: it's how our society construes sex that makes me ultimately say it wouldn't be ever a good idea, at least in our society. It would only be possible if we changed our society (as Neptune@179 suggested above). The way things are now, sex with children is what sports with children would be if it meant automatically involving children with NBA politics and manipulations.

@190(chaya760): I am deeply, profoundly sorry for what happened to you; believe me, I agree it was abusive, bad, and wrong. I hope you can find it in yourself to go beyond such horrible events in a way that puts them in proper perspective in your life. I've myself had to struggle with these feelings at one point in my life, and they've also never gone way.

It's only that this is not what I'm talking about.

@197:
Ankylosaur:

My rhetorical question wasn't about children being interested about sex between adults, but about sex with adults. So, children of course are interested in sex between their parents but that doesn't mean they want to participate (apart from watching, apperently).

I disagree about the technique and strategy: there isn't the perfect technique. Everyone likes something else. Everyone I had sex with so far (not too many, I admit) preferred different kinds of touches etc. in bed. I know my body pretty well but with someone new, something I used not to be excited about seems so exciting all of a sudden.

The books on sexual techniques are titillating and fun to read. They are also good for inspiration. But different to swimming and other sports, there isn't one physical technique that is essential to having good sex. (The manuals regarding potentially dangerous sex plays are way too advanced for any child, anyway, to get into this discussion.)

Re: the death grip. It's only a problem if it leads to discontentment for the wanker and/or his partner. That can happen with every kind of sexual touching: one woman might need direct clitoral stimulation, another one might find that painful. Which kind of touch would one "teach" to a child as the appropriate technique to stimulate a woman? Some men like a finger up their ass, others find it a turn-off: which "technique" is the proper one?

No, in my opinion there is no universal sexual technique that needs to be taught!