@204:
Good points, and I like that you stayed logical throughout, since the original argument was couched in similar language.
Thanks.

@204 Thank you!

@24 Crinoline, CWIA, and the responses thereto:

Anyone with the slightest grasp of world culture, history, biology, etc., ought to be able to figure out that it's not inherently immoral to have sex with anyone below a certain magical age. Humans usually reach sexual maturity somewhere between ages 9 and 15, depending on many factors. Some never do. Furthermore, there are surely "young boys" of age 12 who are far more capable of having emotionally healthy sex than are millions of adults.

So there's the moral question: is what CWIA wants to do intrinsically immoral? Can anyone cite a study showing that anyone below 18 _will_ be harmed by fucking (unless married, in which case 15 or younger depending on some magical link to GPS coordinates)? Or that anyone over 18 _won't_ be? Or, indeed, that a horny 12-year-old is better off fucking another horny 12-year-old than someone twice his age?

So the question isn't about protecting society. Comments about counselling/castration/etc are exactly what Crinoline says: trying to help CWIA fit into a society that demands certain illogical behaviours. It is helpful to note the difference between [telling CWIA that he must conform or go to hell] and [telling CWIA how he might conform, should he choose to].

So there are other options. Move to a country that doesn't illegalise such behaviour--given CWIA's ethical behaviour so far, I'd have no doubt at all that he'd only have sex responsibly. Or of course become a Catholic priest--they have free access to young boys and the protection of an organisation apparently more powerful than the US government. Again, I'm sure he'd find some boys who were willing.

Is it possible to do lasting harm to a "young boy" by having sex with him? Obviously--we see the effects frequently. Is it always going to happen to anyone under 18? That seems unlikely. Please don't confuse what's ethical with what's legal.

That said, CWIA is trying to conform to current USA cultural norms. Counselling may well be his best bet for that goal.

MiscKitty@204: "children are not autonomous so they can never consent": how do you tell the difference between someone who can give consent and someone who can't? That is--what's a child? Please try to do better than some arbitrary tripe linking childhood to counting the vibrations of a cesium atom, okay?

Warning! Many triggers!

204-- Good points, but not inclusive enough or not expansive enough. You're concentrating on penetrative sex. I maintain that any situation where the adult is turned on by a child has the potential, even the likelihood, to be damaging to the child. Imagine two situations which, on the surface, are similar.

In one, a father gives his 5 year old daughter a bath. She's not quite old enough to bathe herself. Maybe she's been ill. One way or the other, he gets her in the soapy water, runs a washcloth over her body, helps her rinse off, then dry off, get in clean pajamas. He reads her a story and puts her to bed. He does this lovingly and parentally. He is assuredly not turned on. If anything, he wishes his wife were home partly because he misses her and is turned on by her and partly because if his wife were home, she'd be doing the childcare while he watched television. He's a little selfish that way.

In the next scenario, the pedophile gives his daughter a bath, but he is turned on. Though dressed while kneeling by the tub, he's hard. He masturbates as soon as the lullaby is over and he's alone in his room. He is not thinking about his wife. He is thinking about the naked little girl in the tub.

I maintain the girl in the 2nd scenario has been abused while the first has not. While she may not be able to articulate why she feels so icky, something is horrible about that situation, and she's likely to feel it in a variety of ways for years to come. This is not because of a lack of autonomy. Neither girl is autonomous. This is not because of the power imbalance. Both fathers hold the power. This has nothing to do with the damage to their young bodies. Neither has been penetrated. It has to do with what I can't name or describe either, but being the object of sexual desire in that way is horrible and damaging. Maybe the psychologists who work in helping the abused to heal can explain it better than I.

@211, sadly, I think case law has moved beyond Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Be careful what you store on your hard drives, people.

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

In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003 by then president George W. Bush. The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males." ...

On December 18, 2008 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction....the petition for his case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court was denied on January 11, 2010.

I hope CWIA is reading all these responses. It sounds like #4 had some encouraging stuff to say; there's someone who was in a LTR w/ a GSP & obviously doesn't think they're a broken person, or irredeemable. & CWIA, someone who wrote Dan w/ the same issue just wrote to him again to thank him for his advice. Said guy is in a relationship w/ a caring partner.

I don't know if I'd second the advice of telling people why you don't want to be around their kids, or elaborating in any way. Just say you don't. Let them think you're that cranky guy who hates kids. You don't need to be further ostracized.

Definitely pre-screen a therapist thoroughly before going in to see them. & don't get discouraged if you don't click w/ the first one your encounter. That's true of people seeking help for problems way less complicated than yours.

Self-hate will only hold you down & help you justify not moving on. Love yourself enough to learn to redirect your desires as much as possible, & don't think it's impossible.

@214, if you want to hang your freedom and your ability to stay off sex-offender lists on the possibility that a jury will see serious artistic value in a particular cartoon blowjob, be my guest.

You are right to correct my over-broad statement @46 that fake porn is "just as illegal" as porn made with real children. Clearly the feds find real porn worse. And copies of Romeo and Juliet seem to be safe.

But I do not think it is reasonable to tell people, as a blanket statement, that "fake porn is legal." How about this: "fake porn is legal unless a jury finds it's obscene."

@191 sissoucat: I am deeply sorry to hear about what you have experienced! Nobody should have to go through that. I hope everything works out for the better for you, and that you can find peace. You're in my thoughts and prayers.

@217
What's your point? That if you get caught you have a good case in court? Good luck with living your life once you've been outed by the cops. Jail is the least of your worries. The overall climate in the US is to hound anyone connected with pedophilia to commit suicide. You won't find a job, you won't be permitted to live in huge swaths of the country, and you will be met with open hostility anywhere you go.

@ 208 -

something, please step back for a moment and consider what you have written. You are arguing that historical precedence is indicative of morality. There is a historical precedence for a wide variety of human behaviors including but not limited to genocide, torture, genital mutilation, mass murder, and medical experimentation on conscious individuals who have received no pain management. Surely you do not really believe that an action having occurred before is justification for individuals preforming that action again.

Now, to address the rest of your argument: there have in fact been countless studies on the development of judgement in children and adolescents. The Journal of Child Neurology is a good starting point if you are interested in learning about the subject. Will you conceded that children prior to the onset of puberty are indeed children, bearing in mind that a child is incapable of abstract reasoning before the age of twelve? If so, it should interest you to learn that neurologists have found that a child prior to adolescence has better judgement than a child during adolescence. This is particularly true of early adolescence. The brain is being bathed in hormones and is undergoing a process referred to as "synaptic pruning." The greatest gap in judgement exists between early adolescence (this is the stage during which children undergo puberty) and middle adolescence (children have completed puberty at this stage - this usually occurs between 14 and 18 years of age).

However, that is not germane to the point that I initially made: children are not autonomous. Children cannot act independently and do not have the freedom to do so. They are reliant upon adults. If a child does not pay for his or her basic needs independently, a child is not autonomous. In other words, as long as a child is reliant upon his or her parents or caregivers for his or her basic needs (food and shelter) he or she is unable to act in a way that is completely independent of their wishes. As such, the child's consent is coerced.

@ 209 -

Crinoline, I did focus on penetrative sex because non-penetrative sex is not physically harmful. Non-penetrative sex will not cause tearing or internal bleeding or damage to internal organs. However, the very first thing I addressed was the moral implications of sex with a child. Those implications are most certainly not limited to penetrative sex. Albeit not rape, non-penetrative sex without consent is certainly sexual assault.

@ 209 - Sorry for the double post, but I didn't give you a full answer and I apologize for that.

Neither child is autonomous so neither child is giving consent. However, the first child is not giving consent to receiving basic care while the second child is not giving consent to foreplay. I would argue that it is not immoral to give basic care but that it is immoral to involve a non-consenting individual in foreplay (for the very reasons you mentioned - the child would possibly notice and feel violated.)

However, policing the thoughts of others is also incorrect. I personally believe that the best way to balance the rights of the pedophile to free thought with the rights of the child to feel safe is an abstracted interpretation of John B. Finch's claim that "your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.” In other words, if the pedophile thinks about a child and no children are at all affected, that is acceptable. If, however, his attraction is felt by a child he is violating that child and is acting outside of the scope of what is moral. (And no, I don't think it matters in the slightest if he believes a child won't notice and he is wrong. In that case, his actions are still immoral and his violation of the child is still indefensible.)

@221 "I don't think it matters in the slightest if he believes a child won't notice and he is wrong."

Indeed. If I believe you will keep your balance when I jokingly shove you in the street, and instead you fall and get run over, my (false) belief doesn't make my action any less criminal.

@221

But does what you're saying apply to her (very upsetting) example?

@223 In Crinoline's example, the girl feels a bad vibe from the pedophile: "While she may not be able to articulate why she feels so icky, something is horrible about that situation, and she's likely to feel it in a variety of ways for years to come."

So (I think) MiscKitty's point is that this is a case where the child has been affected, and has been violated.

But insofar as many guys apparently walk around all day imagining women naked, but at least some of them manage to keep us unaware of that vibe, I think it's possible for a pedophile to have bad thoughts without anyone knowing. And I wouldn't support a government program to try to find out who had those thoughts by hooking people up to plethysmographs.

@200

I second everything you just said.

@226 - it's not "perfectly legal." You may end up eventually clearing your name, after years of appeals. But maybe that will depend on whether you're in California or Tennessee, since community standards play a role.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-24/justi…

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06…

@226
I see. We can all take comfort that innocent people don't get convicted and put on lists that they can't get off. The list isn't the only thing that will keep you from living in certain places. Get your face in the paper and just try to live near an elementary school. There are people with pitchforks and torches where I live who won't permit it. But don't worry! The law is on your side.

@227 EricaP
Change that to: ..."clear" your name...
This is one area where your good name is never coming back.

This question is a day late and a dollar short, but what the hell.

EricaP:

Do you ever find your role as a sub conflicting with your role as a mom, when it comes to making decisions (or deferring on decisions) that affect your children?

PS I'm not judging, though my question might sound stupid. I've just never met D/s parents before and I'm curious about how you two handle parenting.

And the instant after I posted, I saw your comment @82, answering my question already.

Your comments about D/s are really insightful. Thanks a million for sharing, EricaP.

208, Something-- No one here is talking about how harmful it is for an adult to have sex with a post-puberty 18 year old, or even a post-puberty 15 year old. That can be problematic, but it is not the subject. We're talking about pedophilia, sex with pre-puberty children.

Let me take your questions or comments one by one. I do not believe that "surely there are young boys of age 12 who are far more capable of having emotionally healthy sex than are millions of adults," but if there were, those 12 year olds would be more emotionally healthy and better off if they waited until they were older. (That is, sex with a partner. Masturbating alone at age 12 sounds fine.)

"Is what CWIA wants to do intrinsically immoral?" Actually, what CWIA wants to do is get therapy, become happier, and not hurt anyone, but I know that's not what you meant. You're asking if his having sex with a pre-puberty boy is immoral, and it is. Period.

"Can anyone cite a study showing that anyone below 18 will be harmed by fucking?" Of course not. Many teenagers have sex with each other and benefit from the experience. You can go off on other tangents concerning post-puberty teenagers having sex with adults 20 years older and get into Dan's campsite rule or issues of power and coercion, but let's get back to the point. A study showing that a pre-puberty child having sex with an adult is definitely harmful. It would be hard to find a study as you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of one child who was not harmed by the experience.

"Or that anyone over 18 year old won't be." You can find many examples of people who have been harmed by sexual experiences when they were over age 18, but that's irrelevant.

"Or indeed that a horny 12 year old is better off fucking another horny 12 year old than someone twice his age." With two 12 year olds, you've removed some of the power differential, but I still think it unlikely that these 2 magically emotionally mature children would find each other at that age and enter into this consensual relationship. When these two do find each other and decide to become your control group, let us all know.

"Is it possible to do lasting harm to a young boy by having sex with him ... Is it always going to happen to someone under 18?" YES. Change 18 to pre-puberty 13, and the answer is yes. Not unlikely, yes. The distinction has nothing to do with ethical or legal. It is legal in many countries for adult men to marry 10 year old girls. They don't grow up saying the experience was terrific and that they're glad their culture allowed it because they never wanted to wait until they were grown anyway.

Really, I'm surprised no one jumped down your throat for that post sooner. We've all been so busy with ankylosaur that perhaps we forgot.

I take issue with the implication that sexual assault is an act of attraction or lust.

I don't believe child molesters are ordinary (messed up but good hearted) people who simply can't stop fantasizing about having sex with children.

While I solute CWIA for their self awareness and dedication to doing the right thing, I find the perspective taken here to be chilling and skewed. Like when people think domestic violence perps are just big teddy bears without anger management skills, rather than folks who are systematically targeting their partner and/or children with threatening and controlling behavior so as to control the situation. Of course not ALL perps are sociopaths. If someone cannot or is not willing to feel empathy, they are severed from humanity and a danger to our communities.

@232, who wrote: And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

But doesn't that apply to those who don't feel empathy for people in CWIA's position as well?

Assuming that something is automatically true for all cases is usually wrong for at least some of them. Not all domestic violence offenders are "systematically targeting their partner and/or children with threatening and controlling behavior so as to control the situation;" and even those who are are not robots. Humans are not that simple.

@crinoline, nocutename, and others, re: sex with children.

Trigger warnings!

My dear friends, I do understand that the topic is upsetting: any look at your comments makes it clear that it's a question that brings a lot of emotional responses.

Furthermore, among the readers here, there are many who had horrible experiences in their childhood (sissoucat -- what happened to you was really horrible, much more than what happened to me; let me hope you will be able to heal a little every day.). It is unfair to them, as Mr Ven pointed out, to discuss this topic in detail.

Which is why this is going to be my last post anywhere here in this site about it.

I won't go into details. I will just mention one thing: there are cultures in which sex between adults and children occurs and does not lead to harm. (I've mentioned the Ancient Greek custom of pederastia, in which pre-pubescent boys became lovers of older men as part of their education. I've mentioned cultures in which children watching, or even being in bed [well, hammock] together with adults having sex is not uncommon.)

In light of that,

Would you consider, at least for a moment, that a strong, perhaps crucial, part of the horror and repugnance you feel at the idea might be the result of the culture you were born in, not really a result of something physical, or of some inherently spritual, magic thing about sex that simply inherently harms children?

Would you consider, at least for a moment, the idea that the horrible damage done to so many children was not the mere idea of sex per se, or exposure to it, but how it was done, plus the stigma on it? That the problem was not that they had sex with adults, but with abusers who didn't care about the child, his/her boundaries, his/her sanity, his/her feelings? (Again, sissoucat: your father did something repugnant. I really can't fathom what could possibly have been going through his mind.)

Would you consider for a moment that the equation sex with children = evil, no matter what the circumstances are, may be an oversimplification (even if only because, in life, there are hardly any simple things that are always true, or always false?) That there might be cases out there (how many? I don't know) in which this didn't lead to any harm, and that the reason we don't hear about it might be similar to the reason people usually don't hear about successful non-monogamy -- there is no reason for people to come out, there is a horrible stigma against the idea, and probably no one would believe them?

Would you consider, at least for a moment, that the reason why Crinoline finds it so hard to express in words exactly why it is that the little girl being bathed by a pedophile father (who doesn't touch or harm her physically in any way, but masturbates afterwards) feels is 'icky', and why it is that she might be harmed forever -- that the reason for this fealing could be cultural, how the situation is construed, what it is felt to mean, not anything in the reality of the situation itself? (And yes, 5-year-olds are very much cultural beings. Notice that, in America, they speak English -- something they were not born with.) That perhaps in another culture (one in which fathers wouldn't necessarily think it wrong to bathe their daughters, and feel that their wives ought to do it), and in some cases even in our own, the little girl might actually feel nothing at all (other than children's usual little angry reaction at the idea that they have to bathe, rather than go on playing with their toys)?

Look at your comments, and look at the rational argument vs. emotional reaction ratio. Don't you see a certain similarity between that, and those comments written by conservative right-wing people about how horrible the gay sex is? How anal sex debases you, destroys your belief in god, leads to eternal damnation? Who claim gays want to 'stick their penises into excrements and wiggle them around', as someone said not so long ago? Have you read what Eastern European anti-gay protesters said? Do you think their horror is any less deeply felt than yours, that their outrage is felt any less as a natural reaction to an abomination, to something that harms people, to something that is obviously, clearly evil?

And I'm not belittling emotions. Again, many of you (and I, too) were violated by abusers as children; how can people with this background even consider this issue without horrible flashbacks, strong emotional responses, no, no, NO!

But then again, there are people who as children were abused by gays (I'm one such person); maybe some of them were scarred in such a way as to have the same instinctive repugnance to gays and the very idea of homosexuality. They may also feel deep revulsion and horror at the idea of gays, and what they do! No, no, NO!

I know that emotional reactions are unavoidable to humans, and that as cultural creatures we find it hard to dissociate from culture-inspired emotions. In fact, if you've thus far in this comment, I am quite sure you are now very angry at me, perhaps repulsed, perhaps even re-evaluating any good impressions you might have had about me and deciding I'm just some deranged or broken individual, 'damaged goods' as they say, who is letting his own 'brokenness' shape his thoughts into horrible, repugnant patterns that are not meant to be. Perhaps I'm a deranged individual trying to justify child rape? With no concern and empathy for other people? Or at best a dellusional intellectual lost in fantasies of false equivalences who thinks he can justify anything as some sort of intellectual exercise, for his own selfish amusement?

If that is what you're feeling right now, then I ask: step aside for a moment and look at your feeling dispassionately (the way we're supposed to 'watch our feelings from the outside' in yoga meditation exercises), and ask yourselves whether the roots of this feeling are rational (i.e., am I really a bad person who is for some stupid intellectual reason trying to, or at least running the risk of, inflict(ing) harm on you) or not. And if not, what are these roots? Are they universal, or could they be culturally based?

Compare your feeling of repugnance to the aforementioned feeling of repugnance felt by fundamentalist Christians at the idea of homosexuality and at the specifics and mechanics of gay sex. Isn't there a certain similarity? (Doesn't that in fact even help you understand them better -- understand them as human beings who feel really, really bad in their hearts about something they were taught to construe as being really evil? Doesn't it help you understand better what they feel when they read advice written by Dan Savage -- how they think he is a deranged, dellusional, extremist individual wrong on so many levels they can't even begin to describe how?)

Well, that's pretty much it. Judge it as you will. Judge me as you will.

If you think what I just wrote or said will affect your opinions about me so that you'll no longer be able to engage rationally with me, without an emotional response to the opinions I've just espoused, when we're talking about other topics (the way nocutename once claimed she couldn't forget what EricaP had previously written), then please tell me now. I could, for example, not post here in this site any longer, and leave you all in peace, if you think this would be better. Please let me know.

Ankylosaur, just give this a break. I don't think anyone wants you to leave the site. Just..let this go. There's some bit of empathy or connection that makes many/most of the readers here view sex differently than you do. They are *unable* to separate those emotions from the discussion.

All I can think, again, is that you need more help getting over what you went through as a child. You seem very removed, & in some stretches sound clinical & detached.

You don't sound like a bad person, but since (as has been explained both emotionally, by upset people, & calmly, by people trying to be sympathetic) the power differential between adult & child is too vast, the societal construct you are imagining does not exist, & furthermore, it's likely not possible to exist.

The intellectual point(s) you have been trying to make are acknowledged. But geez, to compare the aversion society at large has for pedophilia to how some conservatives see gay relationships - that was disheartening. Really..? *That* analogy, again?

I don't think you are broken, any more so than I think anyone else is broken. But it seems to me, allll the way here in Virginia (nowhere close to Seattle, alas) that you have questions raging in your mind that you need to answer.

The position of the world at large is not wrong, on this issue.

***

@ CWIA: to repeat, I hope you are reading all the unregistered comments. I dunno how accurate voids@ 233 is, but that sounds like stuff that should be thought about, to me.

OK, Eva. That was indeed my last post on the topic.

I hope you're right.

237 Ankylosaur-- I don't hate you. I don't judge you (maybe a little). I don't want you to leave the site. I do think you're wrong for the reasons stated above. I'm not a quivering mass of emotional reactionism so cowed by my cultural indoctrination that I can't think straight. I am rational. I have reviewed the evidence. I have come to vastly different conclusions from yours, and I resent the implication that if I only thought about it more and thought about it more dispassionately I'd agree with you.

@239(unicorn), quite interesting. Would you want to share the details? You could remain an unregistered commenter for ever higher anonimity.

I wished more people like you would come out and admit they had sex as children without harm -- not to belittle those who were harmed (I still cannot understand what was going on in sissoucat's father's head above; he must have been horribly delusional).

I'm afraid that you're probably not going to be believed if you say you weren't harmed. Look at Ms Hopkin's comment above -- and she is really being nice to me. It's not simply that you have the burden of NOT having been harmed, when others have: it's that your reaction is probably going to be pathologized somehow. "It can't be true that you were not harmed; you must have developed some kind of protective mechanism to hide the horrible truth from yourself!"

So if you come out, you will suffer. That's true. But unfortunately that's what needs to happen, so that people will gain some more perspective on the problem and not jump to conclusions.

243-- A little application of Occam's razor here. Perhaps the reason more people like unicorn don't come out and admit they had sex as children without harm is because there is a vanishing small number of them.

But let's say, in a thought experiment, that we get this group of I'm-OK early sexual initiates together long enough to collect some data. How many are going to check the box that says "Not only am I O.K., I feel lucky. I'm better for the experience. I'm glad it was done this way and don't think it would have been better or equal if I'd waited until I was through puberty and having consensual sex outside a power differential"?

I'm all ears. What's the advantage that would make the risk of PTSD worth it?

@242, Crinoline, you are actually one of the least emotional, indeed. You aren't thorwing words around like "repugnant" or "horrible" at the very idea, and I give you credit for that. Also, the most word-throwing happened in the other thread (where also Kim in Portland felt really bad because of my posts, and had to leave -- a fact that does weigh on my conscience.)

Would you be interested in continuing the discussion, including your review of the evidence and the logics of your conclusion? If so, we can talk over the e-mail. I just don't want to post anything on this topic here anymore. My email is yiyomihpe@gmail.com.

@245, that's certainly a possibility, Crinoline. That's also the claim made by those who say non-monogamy never works: we hear so little about happily 'monogamish' couples because they don't really exist. Which is why Dan asked them to come forward.

We'll never know how many people there are like unicorn unless they come out and say so out loud.

I don't know how many would check that box. Wouldn't it be interesting to run the experiment?

What's the advantage? :-) It's like asking what's the advantage of being gay, or kinky, or Lutheran. The main problem is not whether it's advantageous, but whether it is harmful. If there really is no good whatsoever in it, nobody (screening out the bad guys first) will want to do it, and then it won't happen. Right?

@245, also, I again point out that some of the first conservative reactions against the existence of gays who were well-balanced, normal, happy individuals was also that it probably was "vanishingly rare". This has now been toned down to "less likely than for straights", and the battle is currently whether this is because homosexuality per se makes it more likely, or whether it is a result of anti-gay stereotypes.

@244, yes, 'different unicorns for different cultures', that is something I would agree with. (I'm not sure, though, whether " it is exactly society's viewpoint (is this taboo or is this a custom) that mainly decides whether harm will be suffered", as you point out. Physical harm is physical harm; a broken arm is a broken arm, and this is harm in all cultures. But with this caveat, yes, I think the social-cultural element is very important, and that changing it in the direction you suggest would help the children.)

@239(unicorn), who wrote:

nobody can predict who gets to be the unicorn and who gets life-long PTSD and who will fall somewhere between. It isn't a matter of being well enough groomed. It doesn't seem to matter what your background is. And so long as it's a crapshoot--with loaded dice--as to whether harm will be suffered, it just isn't worth the risk.

That may be true, unicorn. But unless we know what the odds really are (as opposed to what our -- socially constructed -- 'gut feelings' tell us), how can we evaluate the risk?

Also, note that gays also had (and have) all kinds of statisical risks: suicide, depression, mental illnesses, AIDS, and now (as Dan pointed out in another post) they're much more likely to be among the homeless because many families throw gays out when they come out to them. It doesn't follow from that that gays shouldn't pursue their sexuality (even if we assumed that being gay was a choice).

@234(are you also unicorn?), I sympathize with your position, but I must point out that there are several studies done on brain development that point out small children are really still different from adults, at a neurocognitive level. They are not simply small people with no experience and less grounding and fewer defenses; they also different in important physiological ways from adults.

In your defense, I'm not sure about how the physical differences between adult and child brains translate to the area of consent. You may well be right -- but you may also be wrong.

I think children indeed have to be handled with care, and that it is correct in principle (as is done in our society) to treat children as being capable of meaningful consent in certain things, but not in others (and to gradually move the borderline upward as the child grows).

But I do think that there are things kept on one (or the other) side of the line for mostly cultural reasons rather than for reasons of inherent harm, or because the child couldn't under any circumstances deal with them. Sex is one such thing.

@ank

We all have biases.

I'm not going to comment on what mine are or aren't on this subject. But is it possible, perhaps, that your penchant for 'dispassionately' weighing the anthropological and historical contexts of CSA are a wee bit of intellectualization and actually a defense mechanism? This doesn't seem to be a possiblity you've ever addressed or considered, even in passing (I'll admit I haven't read all your posts on this subject. I assumed you mostly reiterated/clarified your same points because several people seemed to be missing them). Intelligent and/or educated people can put up a lot of smoke screeens this way (I see it all the time, and have done it a fair bit myself) and in my eyes this appears to be what you're doing.

I understand your comparison of why victims of CSA bear similarities to LGBTQ people but I personally think it breaks down on close enough examination. That's just my opinion though.

It's also typically in my nature to detach and intellecutalize which is why I didn't throw words at you or become disgusted by your very theoretical original post. You communicated in my language. I read journal articles on CSA for school without it being 'triggering' because it's stats, it's numbers, it's neuroanatamical effects, cognitive effects, endocrine effects. Crinoline's post at 209, on the other hand, made me feel hot and prickly all around my neck. I almost cried reading it and had to sit quietly for a minute without reading anything else. It was visual, it wasn't abstract.

I guess what I'm saying is that you seem to think that you see everything we see with the addition or reason and education which allow you to see more. I would simply suggest that while this may be possible (I don't believe it to be accurate in this case), it's also possible that it distorts your view.

Ank, I enjoy reading your posts, and I think that everyone stands to benefit from the consideration of a perspective other than their own. You've pointed out the cultural influences that dictate what is acceptable and what is not. (Your words have also been horribly misconstrued; perhaps willfully, perhaps due to emotional kneejerk responses--granted I skimmed many of the comments, but I did not see anyplace where you ever suggested that a parent should have sex with their child to introduce the child to sex, another emotional or willful misinterpretation?). One thing that I think you're missing is the inherent fact that any indivdual's perception is that person's reality.

The perception is that the American culture is predominant, and that our defintions of what is acceptable and what is not are so correct that surely all other cultures must be in compliance with our thinking. That is apparent in one poster labeling your points about other cultures as a construct that exists only in your imagination. There's a whole big world out there in which not everyone thinks the way that 'we' do, but that doesn't make 'them' wrong by default. I think, as a previous post stated, we are confusing what is ethical with what is legal. While we hope that legal includes ethical, ethical does not always incorporate legal.

Mr Ank - I am capable of granting that it might be worth running the experiment - under conditions of infinite time and wealth in various forms of capital. But, as I can't conceive that it would be at all possible for the potential good to outweigh the potential harm by anywhere even beginning to approach the proportion necessary to make it worth even looking at the possibility of implementation, your experiemnt is one that at best I'd file under Things That Might Be Interesting to Know.

That's as favourable to your point of view as I am capable of being. Please don't push; you won't get any further. If you want to spend all your capital on this cause, you have every right to do so. Mine is insufficient for the quarters where I know it can accomplish something doable.

And if you want me to engage on the question of comparable societal prejudices, pick a different societal prejudice, please - preferably one that doesn't affect a large portion of the posters here. I know, it's like the Red Queen telling Alice she couldn't deny that if she tried with both hands, but there we are. Sorry.

@252(mydriasis),

I agree. We all have biases. Myself included.

I do consider this possibility. I think I said it in the other thread, but just for the record, let me say it here explicitly:

(a) I do accept the possibility that my opinion is wrong, and
(b) that it might be the result of self-delusion, based (or not) on my own bad experiences in the past. (In fact, I could even hazard guesses as to what it might be, if I look dispassonately at my own past abuse.)

But I must add: I hope you all also admit the possibility that the currently accepted opinion about CSA might also be wrong, and for cultural reasons (which is the social equivalent of (b) above).

(Re-reading your post, I see you did admit this possibility at the end. Fair enough. There is nothing else I can reasonably ask you to do. Thank you for that.)

Having said that, I still maintain that an idea stands and falls on its merits alone, not on the reasons I may or may not have for believing in it.

The repetition you mention is indeed the result of people making the same points again -- possibly because they weren't always the same people and hadn't read all the comments. I have also seen people, and intelligent ones at that, throw the smokescreen you mentioned (you should see certain unnamed Chomskyan linguists giving talks...); but I don't that this what I'm doing. I don't think I repeated anything there just for the sake of repetition; my reactions were usuallly addressed to specific commenters who seemed to me to have missed the point.

I'm OK if you think the analogy breaks down. I'm sure most people here agree with you. I hope you won't be offended if I say I think it doesn't break down, though. And if I expand on why not. (It's not personal, against you or anyone specifically. It's just really what I think is true, plus the reasons why.)

Crinoline's description also touched me (though in my case the feelings were in the stomach, and were more akin to a desire to vomit). Among other things, because my daughter was in the shower when I read that, and I could hear the water. Talk about a physical reaction!... The only thing I can hope, though, is that you may remain open to the possibility that, despite our revulsion, it may actually be... that nothing bad happened in that second case. That there was no harm to the girl. Or, if there was, that it came from cultural construal (since the father did nothing to the girl, other than have an erection), since there isn't per se anything physical in an erection that should harm a person it hasn't even touched.

I am against inflicting harm. Iam not in favor of abuse. Never was, never will be. I am in no way trying to support abuse in any form, in any way, of anyone, never, nowhere.

I am only suggesting that the equation child+sex=abuse=evil may not always hold. That there may be circumstances, and cases (how many? who knows?) -- even in our society, with its huge anti-CSA bias -- in which this would not be harmful. (Like the case of unicorn above.)

My, Ank, and others. Please accept my apologies. I was looking for the most benign and fictional example to illustrate my point and am sorry I wasn't able to think of something even more benign or abstract. It was never my intention to make anyone ill, even momentarily.

I keep thinking I'm making my last post on the subject, then feel compelled to keep going. Here's (yet again) the crux of our disagreement on the subject. Ankylosaur says that nothing bad happened in that 2nd (fictional) case since the father did nothing to the girl. If there was harm, it was cultural. I'd say that harm was done and that the harm has nothing to do with the culture.

To say that there isn't anything per se physical is to say that threats can't harm anyone even if they're not carried out or that being dangled over a cliff isn't harmful even if you're not dropped. But there I go making the abstract concrete again, and I don't mean to do that. I am sorry.

I see there are already 250 comments to this column, so maybe mine won't be seen by too many people. I need some advice a situation I have struggled with for years.

Here it is in 12 points:
1. I have a friend who I've known for 35 years.
2. He came out to me only after 15 years into the friendship. He's never come out to his parents and to only one other friend. He is 56.
3. In 35 years I have never seen him in any sort of romantic relationship.
4. I don't know if it matters, but I am straight, married, and have two grown children.
5. About 10 years ago, when I asked him (I'd been picking up clues for years) he told me he was a "boy lover."
6. He's been to NAMBLA meetings in other cities. He believes that boys and men can have healthy loving, sexual relationships - as long as it is consensual.
7. I have tried to be sympathetic and supportive. He rejects counseling because of legal reasons, and he doesn't see it as an illness (although he'd obviously rather not have this).
8. He has acted out, at least once, an act of suicide (by hanging).
9. He works closely, on a weekly basis, with Boy Scouts. He's done so for years.
10. He lives with his sister, brother-in-law, and their three boys. One of the boys, about fifteen years old, is pretty obviously gay.
11. He's employed at a county youth shelter (but no longer works directly with the children).
12. He claims he does not have sex with underage boys, because he knows he'd end up in jail.

WHAT SHOULD I DO??? WHAT ARE MY OBLIGATIONS???

I see there are already 250 comments to this column, so maybe mine won't be seen by too many people. I need some advice a situation I have struggled with for years.

Here it is in 12 points:
1. I have a friend who I've known for 35 years.
2. He came out to me only after 15 years into the friendship. He's never come out to his parents and to only one other friend. He is 56.
3. In 35 years I have never seen him in any sort of romantic relationship.
4. I don't know if it matters, but I am straight, married, and have two grown children.
5. About 10 years ago, when I asked him (I'd been picking up clues for years) he told me he was a "boy lover."
6. He's been to NAMBLA meetings in other cities. He believes that boys and men can have healthy loving, sexual relationships - as long as it is consensual.
7. I have tried to be sympathetic and supportive. He rejects counseling because of legal reasons, and he doesn't see it as an illness (although he'd obviously rather not have this).
8. He has acted out, at least once, an act of suicide (by hanging).
9. He works closely, on a weekly basis, with Boy Scouts. He's done so for years.
10. He lives with his sister, brother-in-law, and their three boys. One of the boys, about fifteen years old, is pretty obviously gay.
11. He's employed at a county youth shelter (but no longer works directly with the children).
12. He claims he does not have sex with underage boys, because he knows he'd end up in jail.

WHAT SHOULD I DO??? WHAT ARE MY OBLIGATIONS???

I would like to just offer myself as an anecdote that might provide a bit of hope to CWIA and others like him.
I had a frequent active sexual (no penetration or oral) relationship with another same age boy from 11 yo to about 16. (With extreme guilt of course, catholic schools)
Although I tried to repress my gay and pedophillic feelings, I still find boys beautiful and erotically attractive.
I married a woman (19 years together) and had a son. Yes, I sometimes saw my beautiful son as sexually attractive. I did not ever touch him sexually or any boy ever as an adult and never will nor do I look at illegal porn.
I have worked hard to accept myself both as a gay man and a gay man with partly pedophillic feelings. (They are not exclusively for boys)
I believe that "fantasy does no harm". I have a lot of respect for Dan Savage and always especially follow closely when this topic comes up which is why I just read all the comments here. I only rarely come to this site. I think Dan has to be very careful about this topic for his reputation sake which may be why his advice on this topic seems different than all the others where he seems to agree with my idea that "fantasy does no harm' rather than you need reparative therapy.
As for me, I finally came out at age 40 when I met a beautiful 35 year old gay Asian man and found a mutual love and attraction with him. He was just 5'0 and just under 100 pounds when we met. He loves to be my 'boy' and keeps the hairless boy look completely for me, and I love to be his man. That was over 20 years ago, and we are married now and still deeply in love and lust.
Dan savage once wrote in another response to a couple like us that it was ok to fantasize age regression or whatever because they just wanted to have a fantasy as one partner as a boy and wouldn't really want sex with a real boy. Well, I think that is not really true. If it were possible to know my current spouse as a real boy I would love to have sex with him, or if the society we live in had man-boy sex as acceptable, I would want it.
But of course I know this will never happen. We can not go back to the many societies where adult males were given access to boys for sexual pleasure. There were lots, not just Greeks. By the way, I am very widely read in the area of 'Queer Studies'.
(Read "Born to Be Gay". I don't like the title but it is a highly informative scholarly history of homosexuality globally)
I also wanted to say that regarding the second letter from the woman into D/s that the key is to keep that play in the private sexual time. Don't show that to her daughter in even subtle manifestations. My partner and I also play around a bit with Dom Dad and sub boy being shown off or whatever, but that is strictly for our private playtime. In daily life,
we are equal partners in all matters.
So CWIA, it is possible to indulge in fantasy and never go to the reality. Somehow I doubt it can be wished away. I tried and failed.
But I am now a very happy mid 60s man with a beautiful 59 yo boy! He will always be my little boy who never grows up.
And yes, I do look at the real beautiful boys around me. Looking does no harm either.

@Mr Ven, I myself feel more like the Red Queen running with all her might to stay where she was. No, I don't intend to invest any time on this question, and my point is more about keeping an open mind than about convincing people to try experiments.

What you said you could do is already (more than I expected, and I appreciate that. More perhaps than you imagine.

@258 (PRD), here is my opinion.

Try to get him into counseling with a friendly therapist -- as Dan says in his advice to CWIA, and as others have said here, the obligation to report is true only if there is case for suspicion of harm. You're obviously afraid that he has already found 'boy lovers' and harmed them. If his claim that this is not true is correct, since therapists are not required to report unless there is real danger, he would be (at least at first) safe. Tell him that if he refuses, then it will look like he is lying, and you'll be afraid of what might happen. Make it clear to him that, if he doesn't talk to a therapist as soon as possible, then the situation will force you to report him -- to the police.

Here's the basic point: if he is indeed telling the truth and nobody was harmed, he should be able to go to a (friendly) therapist -- check the suggestions of the doctor in Dan's advice -- and make his case there. If he isn't, then you'd feel like you have sufficient cause to fear danger. Tell him it would be unfair for him to put you in such a position. Bargain with him, do whatever it takes -- but get him to talk to a qualified professional.

If he won't, under any circumstances, ever, even without risk of going to jail... then I'd report him. Because I would feel the risk is too high, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't.

@260(Fantasy Dom), I am truly glad that you found ways to live with your desires that meant no harm to anybody, and I applaud your courage in actually saying it out loud. Dan's concept of 'Gold Star Pedophiles' certainly applies to you.

I sincerely hope that it will be possible for pedophiles in our culture to find some solution like yours -- age play with a younger, but not minor, consenting partner. I hear this is not the case for every one of them, but -- as you demonstrate -- it does work in some cases. It certainly is an open option, and -- who knows? -- it might work for CWIA.

And I also agree that looking does no harm. As long, of course, as you don't look in a way that makes the beautiful boys, or those who are with them or care about them, uncomfortable.

I'm glad you've found happiness. I wish you and your happy 'boy' even more of it.

@258, Me, I would tell him that he has three months to remove himself from all situations with under-age boys (move out of the house, quit his job, quit Boy Scouts), AND also start seeing a therapist.

If I didn't see those actions, I would tell his sister, his employer, and the scout parents that he had attended NAMBLA meetings in other cities and confessed to pedophilia.

No one in his situation should be working so closely (and living so closely) with young boys. There are no excuses.

@Crinoline, I am the last person who would criticize you for not resisting the temptation of writing one more post. I'm much guiltier than you, of the same sin.

No problem with your description. The fact my daughter was in the shower was a coincidence that you couldn't possibly have predicted. (Nor the fact that I also used to bathe my daughter, just like in your first description, when she was too young and couldn't bathe herself. My wife always trusted me on that.) Besides, to me, my reaction is evidence that I, too, am a product of my culture.

You say in the second situation that harm was done, and that it's not related to the culture (i.e., it doesn't depend on what the daughter and/or father think is appropriate for fathers/daughters in that context in our culture).

So here is my question: what was the harm? You say he didn't touch her. I presume the only thing that happened is that the daughter saw the father's erection. Do you really think that -- without the influence of culture -- this mere vision would be enough to cause harm, even trauma, with PSTD and all? (At age 5, the daughter might even not have been 'enlightened' about sex yet, so she might not even know that her father's erection implied sexual desire.) Unless someone had somehow made her understand that 'erections were a threat' (meaning - semantics - symbolism) -- how would she know? How could she feel threatened, or harmed?

Note: an erection is not per se a 'threat', just a physical reaction; it implies desire, but it doesn't imply that the desire is out of control, or even that the object of this desire is present in the room. Just like a fist is not necessarily aggressive (in some cultures it's a religious symbol), or an open hand is not necessarily a gesture of peace (in Greece, as I recall, it's a sexual offense, like a raised middle finger). An erection is not like hanging over a cliff, with gravity as an inescapable physical force pulling down. I imagine the girl would feel scared if she was hanging over a cliff for a much, much more obviously dangeorus reason, than because of an erection the cause of which she might not even be informed about.

(And note one could even make the argument, though I don't think it's necessary, that hanging over a cliff could be considered a good thing in some cultures -- say, as an initiation ritual for boys who are to become men. Some cultures do much worse than that. But this is really not necessary for the argument.)

@254(catballou), thank you, I appreciate your opinion. I understand that many people don't know about how different other cultures can be (Brazilians are just like Americans in this respect; most of them think everything is or should be the way it is there. Though given all those American movies we watch, they understand that at least some things are different in America, they aren't sure they forgive the Americans for that. :-)

Thank you again.

@255 you propose disingenuously that: "the equation child+sex=abuse=evil may not always hold."

But you really mean: "the equation child+ADULT+sex=abuse=evil may not always hold."

I still think the risk of serious abuse is too high to envision combining these three things:
- adult arousal
- normal adult authority over children
- the decriminalization of adult/child sex play

And if I had "conditions of infinite time and wealth in various forms of capital," per Mr. Ven, I'd put my wealth and time into inventing cool sex robots for children before I'd run experiments involving aroused adults with children.

By the way, ankylosaur, if you're sincerely interested in questioning assumptions about sex, there are lots of interesting topics. We could talk about honor killings, about cultures that encourage men to kill women for having sex outside the approved norms.

I bet many (most?) women in those cultures feel safer, knowing that their men are taking good care of them and protecting their honor. Would you grant that the equation killing-dishonored-women = evil may not always hold?

Or prison rape. Would you grant that the equation "powerful-prisoner + weak-prisoner + sex = evil may not always hold?

Mr Ven.

It seems, I now realize, that you were right in the other thread, when you accused me of wanting to be right rather than nice.

In a thread with reasonably many offensive words and knee-jerk reactions, those words did get to me. Maybe they are just an English expression I hadn't heard before, I don't know; if so, please pardon my probably exaggerated reaction; but since they involve two things -- 'right' (= truth) and 'nice' (= goodness) -- that I always held as ideals, as beacons of light in my conscience, for various different but important reasons... And plus considering Kim in Portland's reaction (which, as you pointed out, was my fault, and does weigh on my conscience), plus the recent funeral of a dear old friend, a great colleague and old lover... your words did get to me. Like being hit by a club.

If I did indeed, as you hinted at several times, hurt you with some of my comments -- about Louie C.K., or about words not being bad in themselves, but rather people, or by writing long, repetitive posts about trivialities -- then you've got your revenge. Of all posts there, yours (and Kim's) were the only ones that brought tears to my eyes. (I know this sounds like an overreaction -- especially if indeed 'rather right than nice' is a common expression that I simply didn't know -- but it would make sense against the context of my life if you had more details about it).

You confronted me with the opposition of my two ideals, and I think you're right. Truth outweighs good. I would rather find truth ('be right', as you said) than avoid harm ('be nice'). And realizing this does, indeed, hurt me. Perhaps I am not as ethical as I thought (or wished) I was.

Thank you. Sincerely. Better to know than not to know.

Ankylosaur, how about an adult male pleasuring himself to climax on a 3 month old infant? Without penetration no physical harm is done. And no emotional harm is done since the infant will not remember it. Please tell me you haven't "educated" your mind backwards so far as to not recognize that would be a morally repugnant act REGARDLESS of the lack of "harm". In the words of George Orwell, "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."

@267 (EricaP), not disingenously. I made a mistake. I'm sorry. I did mean children+ADULT sex (CSA as mydriasis put it). Maybe the context of this comments thread, or my previous posts, would have made it clear. But still I did make a mistake.

I'm sorry.

On your bullet points:

- Adult arousal can be controlled. If it couldn't, then Heartbroken's boyfriend from last week's column would be right, he just "couldn't control himself", and no man could ever be trusted to act ethically when sex and arousal are involved.

- Normal adult authority over children (the power imbalance) can and is circumvented in all kinds of child-adult interactions in real life. I know you don't like the sports metaphor, but this point is exactly what that metaphor is supposed to attack: namely, that because adults have authority they can never give a child room to interact with them (adults) with self-agency. Or else, there would be no point in playing games with children, in which normal adult authority is lessened (or even suspended) so that the game can be meaningful.

- I think what should be always criminalized is child-adult abuse. As for sex play, the variables are so complicated that I probably wouldn't favor decriminalization, unless there was a very good description of the set of circumstances under which this would happen, and the child's safety was kept secure. (I don't agree with the Ancient Greeks that this would be easy to solve; I think it would involve real problems. It's clearly not as simple as legalizing sodomy.)

But in the interest of those who might be happier if it were adopted (like unicorn above), I hope someday a better solution than mere criminalization can be found. Meanwhile, I hope you won't begrudge unicorn, and those like him, for not reporting the adults they had sex just because there was no harm. I hope such people, no matter how few they are, will manage to escape the law.

I wish you luck with your research on sex bots for children. I hope you won't mind if I'm afraid of the possible consequences of robots who wouldn't be able to react with a real human's sense of context and would be much less good than a real human at picking and perceiving the needs of a child -- I tend to think good sex robots for children would be as difficult to build as good robot parents -- but maybe I'm wrong and you're right. I certainly don't have data on the topic.

Ankylosaur and EricaP, thanks for the responses. I have struggled with this for years; maybe I have been irresponsible.

Issuing an ultimatum like you suggest would definitely end the relationship (which I could live with).

This guy doesn't have much in his life, and I think the scouts - provided no one is being abused - really benefit from his involvement. (Frankly, I am surprised none of the parents have raised questions about him. Maybe they're just relieved there's someone to do activities so they don't have to!).

But to me, being around boys all the time is like an alcoholic working in a brewery. Not a good idea.

Also, the play-acting hanging he told me he did (sitting on the floor, rope around neck and door knob) - what if he commits suicide after I reveal his inclinations? I pleaded with him to get some counseling about this, too.

He's really put me in a tight spot.

265 Ankylosaur--

To reiterate:

Do I really think that without the influence of culture the mere fact of a 5 year old being bathed by a man who was actively turned on by giving her the bath causes harm? Yes. I've said as much in many ways.

Why? Because it does.
How? I don't know, but it does.
How do I know? Now adult children who have been abused (NACWHBA) have said so.
Can I be sure without collecting data from NACWHBA or rather don't use the term abuse for the sexual contact? It's not worth speculating on what it would take to do that sort of research.

Still not sure of my position? Reread my posts.

How is it possible if she doesn't even see or understand what an erection is? I think EricaP used the term "vibe," and that works for me. (Thanks, EricaP.)

What was the harm? The well documented fear, loathing, sexual dysfunction, and self hatred that abuse survivors describe all too well.

Have more questions? Read my posts again (and again). I'm bored, and you're playing the game of pretending not to understand so I'll repeat myself and that in doing so, I'll suddenly decide I'm being inconsistent and will agree with you. I've expressed myself quite well, I'm sure. If you don't understand, try harder, or let it rest.

@270, let's say the adult masturbated to the photograph -- or to a virtual porn depiction -- of said three-year-old, so that not only there was no harm, but also there was no child involved. Would you still think this was a despicable act?

That's what I thought. And that's my point: this is culture speaking, not nature or reason. You'd find it despicable even if no child was even involved. It's the symbolism, not the reality, that you find despicable.

To cite George Orwell again, some people can only think: "two legs bad, four legs good."

@272 Please consider the possibility that he told you about his suicidal thoughts to keep you from reporting him. And consider that he may have used the same tactic to keep boys from reporting him to their parents. He sounds very manipulative. I would not trust him when he tells you that he had not abused anyone.

Yes, Erica, you're right. I have considered that. I don't think he's been all that honest with me about a lot of things over the years.

@271, why do you discuss my bullet points separately, when my point was the danger of combining the three?

If a child were in a position of authority over an adult (say, an eight-year-old prince over his adult servant), and if the servant were terrified and thus never aroused, then I could imagine that their sex play would not be detrimental to the prince. (Though it might damage the servant.)

@Crinoline, who wrote:

Why? Because it does.
How? I don't know, but it does.

And you don't think that this implies something? To a scientist, this is an immediate red flag. 'Because it does' is never a satisfactory answer.

I think EricaP used the term "vibe," and that works for me. (Thanks, EricaP.)

And if the child doesn't pick the "vibe" (whatever it is), then there is no harm? Would a "vibe-erasor" dispel the harm, like an aerosol spray dispelling bad odors in the bathroom?

I think you'll say: no it wouldn't. The situation would still cause harm, it would still be despicable.

Which to me is the textbook definition of a cultural event. To believe that a child who wasn't harmed in any phyiscal way, who didn't even pick the "vibes", who doesn't even know what an erection is or means, would still be harmed by seeing one... cannot be explained in any other way.

If you'd still believe in that even if, years and decades after the fact, there still was no sign of "fear, loathing, sexual dysfunction, and self hatred that abuse survivors describe all too well" in the girl... then believing in harm in this case would be tantamount to believing in ghosts.

I don't have doubts about your position, Crinoline. I am disagreeing with it, and I'm trying to give you reasons why disagreeing with your opinion is legitimate and logical. That's all.

I'm not repeating anything. I'm not pretending not to understand. I've read and re-read your posts; they still don't address the point I raise.

Sorry if bored you. I hope you'll find more interesting things than me to read, here and elsewhere.

Also, I haven't seen you tackle the difference between assent and consent raised by Canadian Nurse in the other thread:

Kids can assent to things their guardians have deemed safe.

Kids cannot consent to anything, because they do not understand the risks, benefits, likelihoods and probabilities.

Would you agree that any sex between adults and children should be thoroughly supervised by an adult outside party?

In regards to all this, "All practitioners of X were abused/No, I am a practitioner of X and I was not abused . . ." discussion:

I was sexually abused as a child, and it is incredibly hurtful for people to act like my sexual desires are invalid because of my sexual abuse. Let's pretend for a moment that I liked X, and that my liking of X could be directly linked to my sexual abuse. So the fuck what? I mean, if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to want to help others," people would likely support this. But if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to like being spanked," people would gasp in horror. They would insist that this was proof that my desire to be spanked was invalid, and they would demand that I go and work to excise the desire to be spanked. And that's terrible. I should not be denied my sexual agency because my sexual agency was denied as a child.

To clarify: sports are all done in public.

In your imagined world of non-harmful sex acts between children and adults -- would that also be done in public?

Oops, I mean to hit "save changes" and I seem to have hit "submit" instead. Here is my slightly edited post:

In regards to all this, "All practitioners of X were abused/No, I am a practitioner of X and I was not abused . . ." discussion:

I was sexually abused as a child, and it is incredibly hurtful for people to act like my sexual desires are invalid because of my sexual abuse. Let's pretend for a moment that I liked to be spanked, and that my liking of spanking could be directly linked to my sexual abuse. So the fuck what? I mean, if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to want to help others," people would likely support this. But if I said, "My sexual abuse caused me to like being spanked," people would gasp in horror. They would insist that this was proof that my desire to be spanked was invalid, and they would demand that I go and work to excise the desire to be spanked. And that's terrible. I should not be denied my sexual agency because my sexual agency was denied as a child.

And what about my question @268 about prison?

Do you think that we should consider the possibility of fun, delightful sex acts between powerful prisoners and weak prisoners?

Why aren't you interested in discussing that? Why are you so focused on children, when the same question arises for anyone who is (temporarily) powerless.

@PRD, if he commits suicide because this (assuming you did tell him you were on his side, and you could understand him), then this is certainly not your fault. Committing suicide at this point would be a sign of some sort of delusion or self-hatred, some psychological problem he simply wasn't ready to face and fight against. And, I repeat: it wouldn't be your fault.

A man who doesn't have much else in his life other than the boy-scouts does sound odd. It makes one think of obsession, anti-social impulses, complexes, and worse things. Plus the rope and hanging play you mentioned... It actually makes it sound worse than in your first description. He may indeed have serious problems -- even if he has never harmed any child.

If no harm is being done, then he can make the case with a reasonable therapist (and do try to find one that is OK with "Gold-star pedophiles" and won't immediately condemn him as a pervert, but try to work with him so that no harm is done to any child). If for no other reason, at least so that he tries to get other things into his life, to make it more varied, more meaningful, less centered on the boy scouts and the "alcoholic in a brewery" situation you so aptly described.

He did put you in a tight spot. I wonder why he confessed to you. Isn't it perhaps a sign that he is asking for help -- that he does want someone to stop him?

@ankylosaur

I have not read much of what you have said because I fear that if I do, I will start frothing. However, I will share a bit about my sexual abuse in hopes that maybe you can begin to understand.

My father sexually abused me from my earliest memories. I have no recollection of a time before the abuse started. Given this starting point, I grew up believing that what was going on was normal. I also assented to and instigated some of it (as hard as that is for me to say) because I knew it was a way to garner my father's affections and assuage his anger. No one picked up on what was going on either, undoubtedly because we were of reasonable social standing and I was both well behaved and able to get very good grades in school. If you had looked at me as a child, you likely would have cited me as an example of your point.

But it was all a lie. I broke off all contact with my father at 16 because I had stopped functioning. By 18, I was severely depressed to the point of near suicide, and I had PTSD. I have severe anxiety attacks around men and have not managed to have anything approaching a reasonable romantic relationship.

When someone says, "Well, how do we KNOW it hurts kids?" all I want to do is scream, "FUCK YOU, YOU GOD DAMNED MONSTERS! How dare you say that what he did wasn't hurtful? How dare you ask how we know that I was harmed? How dare you minimize the trauma I have suffered, and say it wasn't real?"

I don't know if that is fair, but I must admit that I am passed caring very much. I have had enough with people believe that they get to decide if my suffering is justified.

@277(EricaP), because the point was that, since each of the three bullet points can be individually solved, there is no inherent need for them to co-occur. (See unicorn's case above.) It may happen to be that child + adult sex can occur without (a) uncontrollable arousal and without (b) the power imbalance warping the game (and, let's not forget: without harm being done). (The criminalization part is a social problem outside the situation itself; as I said, I hope cases with a+b+no harm do escape the law.)

@287, Lorran, I IN NO WAY think your suffering is unjustified. Please don't read that into my words. I am truly, genuinely sorry for what happened to you, and I think I can understand since I myself was abused and had to struggle with it. I hope you have been successful in dealing with the consequences of this horrible abuse, and that you'll go on growing and freeing yourself from them.

It's simply that I'm talking about something else. Not your case, but something else altogether.

Believe me, I DO think you're more than entitled to thinking that your suffering is justified. It is.

@283/268(EricaP) -- I had really missed that one post. Thanks for pointing it out to me! Here's my reaction.

Yes, there are lots of other topics -- as Dan's column itself tirelessly reminds us. Honor killings? I'm against, because there is always harm (death). (Of course, if the wife thinks she should be killed, since I think people do have a right to suicide, then it would be OK -- but I would still be totally against a society that does teach people they should want to be killed under such circumstances. I suppose here the point is how much harm construal a certain society should be allowed to make.).

In this case, the obvious harm is death, which you cannot escape in an honor killing (unlike the child+ADULT sex case).

As for prison rape: of course the equation "powerful-prisoner + weak-prisoner + sex = evil" doesn't always hold. If both prisoners are willing participants, if nobody is harmed, physicially, emotionally, or otherwise, then why should there be a problem?

This is the same as boss-secretary sex in the work place. Given the power imbalance, bosses and secretaries are encouraged not to have relationships, and I can see why. But surely nobody things that every (or even most) cases of boss+secretary sex resulted in harm or damage to the secreatry (or even to the boss)? Hell, I know married people who started their relationship like that. I could similarly imagine the two prisoners you mentioned, despite their power imbalance, also starting a good relationship and even getting married (assuming gay marriage will become legal in time for them to get married).

Again, assuming that no harm was done.

Power imbalances do create a problem. They make good relationships harder. But by no means do they make them impossible. They're like many other problems -- a big age or economic difference, or living in different countries, or... They make relationships harder, but not impossible.

I think that's the point to me, EricaP. I think that, in a situation, if there was no harm, then there was no harm. It's pointless to claim that "there was harm" if there verifiably wasn't; it's like assuming that harm is some metaphysical thing that exists even when it doesn't.

@281, sports are not always done in public (I often played soccer with other boys in the backyard without anybody watching), but I do agree they often are, and that surveillance of children's activities is on the increase.

So: yes, I think there should be surveillance of child+ADULT sex. If not a third person present, then maybe recording.

At the very least, I'd claim that any child+ADULT sex act should have the OK of some other adult -- mother, father, responsible caretaker, SOMEONE who is adult and can, as an adult, verify that the child in question (who cannot do the verification, for obvious reasons) is indeed not being harmed.

It's a bit like Dan's rule for dating people you meet online: for safety reasons, meet him/her in a public place and always tell someone else where you're going and what you'll be doing afterwards so they can check on you.

@EricaP, I think a summary of my position is: It's all about harm. To make me see that something is bad and shouldn't be done, all you have to do is show that there is necessary harm. (Or, if you're talking about a specific situation, that harm has occurred there).

To make a different comparsion, let me now for a change ask you a question.

Hunter, as we know, keeps claiming that your 24/7 D/s relationship with your husband is not really a happy one; that your husband is manipulating and therefore harming you. You claim you aren't. He'd say you're delusional (as you accused me of being in the other thread) when you say that you are actually quite happy and fulfilled with your open marriage and with your submission, and that things are just fine.

I believe you, because I believe in the possibility of this situation being true, and I have no reason to doubt your word. This doesn't mean I don't realize that it involves serious risks -- risks that go beyond normal vanilla relationships. D/s and BDSM in general do carry a higher risk of real (not sexy) abuse that people have to look out for -- which explains some of the characteristics of most good BDSM communities (very careful screening to eliminate the manipulative assholes, very strong emphasis on safe-sane-consensual play, etc.).

Now, not everybody agrees with me and you. Even here on SLOG. Because there is a clear risk, some people even think (wrongly in my opinion) that it's too dangerous, nobody should ever engage in them. Some think BDSMers should de-program themselves because 'abuse is abuse is abuse, even if it's sexy and hot' (see wendykh).

They -- Hunter, wendykh, others -- might claim: the equation "person+person+BDSM = evil" holds no matter the circusmtances, no matter how much negotition, rules, safewords, etc. there are. It's always bad, it always de-humanizes you, non-BDSM is always better and healthier than BDSM. Maybe some people even think this should be criminalized, and people who engage in BDSM, especially the more 'spectacular' ones (full body bondage, electricity play, etc.) should be forced into therapy to control their urges.

How do you feel about such people, and such ideas?

@290, I don't out myself, because I think that I still live in that society. Those people are welcome to their ideas, but I'm glad I live at a time when the law says that mentally stable adults can consent to BDSM, and where I am considered to be a mentally stable adult.

Do you want to live in a society where the law says children can assent to oral sex with adults, assuming that their parent/guardian approves of the idea and will supervise?

How do we tell the difference between someone who will look back on this event with horror (285), and someone who will look back with pleasure (239), given that they both said at the time that they liked it?

How are we to predict the harm?

@286 "It may happen to be that child + adult sex can occur without (a) uncontrollable arousal and without (b) the power imbalance warping the game (and, let's not forget: without harm being done)."

Unicorn's case was not one of no arousal and no power imbalance. That case could just as easily have lead to bleeding, damage, and harm. Unicorn says she lost her virginity at 5 -- you're going to tell me that her 20 year old abuser was in control of his arousal & the power imbalance enough that he was encouraging her to let him know about any pain or emotional uncertainty she experienced?

And I like how you change arousal to "uncontrollable arousal". Adults often do things because of arousal they regret later. Not "uncontrollable arousal," just regular arousal. If you haven't experienced any regret about anything you ever did because of arousal, I bet you're in the minority.

But I'm glad to hear that any sex between you and a child would be authorized by the child's parents/guardian, and filmed for later viewing by the relevant authorities.

What would your wife think about this thread, if I may be so bold? Does she know what you have spent the day defending?

If you could work behind the scenes to move us toward a society where children could assent to sex with anyone if an outside guardian consented, would you move us in that direction?

Ok, sorry, I'm all riled up and talking to myself here now. I'll check in tomorrow.

@ Ankylosaur:

It was only when I confronted my friend point blank with: "Are you having sex with kids?" that he told me he was a "boy lover" (pedophile). I am quite sure he would NEVER have said anything otherwise. He thinks this is okay - and angry that society makes pariahs of those like himself -- so I am doubtful he was making a plea for help. But who knows about his subconscious?

He is even odder than I can get into here. After 35 years, I've come to see him as a veritable stew of unresolved family/father issues, contradictions in values, repressed desires, and hypocrisies. He is not a bad person, though. He is kind and generous. I have tried very hard to be supportive and not to be judgmental.

He is very dogmatic about the man/boy love thing though. He is not going to willingly go into counseling because I am concerned about kids he says he is not messing with. Stronger measures will need to employed. **sigh**

@ankylosaur

I don't know how you can differentiate my experience with the experience you are talking about. I was not taught that what my father was doing was wrong, so it wasn't that the cultural ban against it caused my problems. My father did not physically injure me in any way. I assented to and instigated some of what he did. If someone had asked me if I had wanted it, I would have said yes and defended what we were doing. Everyone agreed that I was startlingly mature for my age. I got good grades. I behaved well. I felt and professed a deep love for him. It sounds to me like I fit your definition of a possibly healthy adult/child sexual relationship to a T, except that it wounded me beyond expression.

None of the aforementioned criterion stopped the whole situation from warping me to a degree that almost killed me. I was a child, and thus unequipped to stop his manipulation. As soon as I got old enough to sort out what was going on to some degree (that he wasn't giving me a choice, that I didn't really want to be doing it, that it was making me unable to relate to other people), I made it stop, but by then the damage was already done.

In the end, I didn't figure out that what he was doing was wrong because anyone told me so, I figured it out because it broke me. I learned it was wrong because I looked at the results. But if results aren't enough, and if you are talking about something other than what my relationship with my father looked like, then perhaps you can explain how you propose that we tell the difference between your hypothetical situation and my real life one.

@274 ankylosaur

Warning for graphic content:

Why don't you come right out an answer my question directly and instead of dancing around the perimeter? Do you think it is wrong for an adult male to pleasure himself to orgasm with a 3 month old infant in a way that does not hurt the infant (such as orally)?

@301, OK, Vertex.

If there is absolutely no harm for the infant, neither physical nor psychological (no long-time nightmares, no PTSD, no nothing);

then yes, I think it would be all right for an adult to pleasure himself (or herself) to orgasm with a 3 month old infant.

To me, it's all about harm. No harm means no harm. Isn't that simple enough? If an action harms no one, it shouldn't be punished.

Now it's your turn. Answer me one question: if indeed there is no harm (as you said) to the child, isn't it the case that the problem you see in the situation is simply socio-culturally construed? If no, then what is it?

@300

My point remains that if you had asked me if he was forcing me when it was happening, if you had asked me if he was denying me choice, I would have said no. I was just WRONG. I didn't understand that I was doing it because I needed him, because I was a child, because I was dependent on his love, approval, and desires. It took me years to figure out that I did it because if I didn't, he got angry and withdrew. It took me years to realize that if I wanted his attention, I had to perform. He wasn't holding me down, he wasn't threatening to hurt me or anyone else, he wasn't doing anything that I identified as force until much later. His manipulation was emotional and mental in a way I couldn't possibly identify as a child. I didn't even begin to sort it out until my mid-teens.

How do you propose that we ferret this all out given that we're talking about one of the participants being mentally incomplete?