Flutterby™! : Confession for child porn

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Confession for child porn

2002-07-25 16:45:09+00 by Dan Lyke 36 comments

You non-Californians probably aren't up on this, but a guy named Cary Stayner is currently on trial for some grizly murders near Yosemite. Yesterday, an article came out saying that Stayner offered a confession to the FBI in exchange for access to child pornography. The article quotes Stayner as saying:

"In the free world, I was always terrified to go looking for this stuff. If I had the balls to go to San Francisco to the Tenderloin district and ask for this stuff, maybe this would not have happened."

I have mixed feelings about talking about this, it seems to me that Stayner is obviously a few tacos shy of a combo platter, and anecdotes from someone who knows he's screwed up aren't data, and there are all sorts of other ethical issues to be resolved here given that this is specifically about child pornography, but people have noted before the possible connections between repression and violent killers.

[ related topics: Erotic Sexual Culture Ethics Bay Area Current Events Law Enforcement ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment made: 2002-07-25 17:20:33+00 by: TC

very very bad man. I saw the story and just went Doh! Instead of prison I think he should be sent to the next Catholic altar boys retreat along with these blights of humankind. Child Porn? umm lets not do this before burningman. I've got pretty strong feelings about this(like everyone else) and don't feel like being even a little open minded about this right now.

#Comment made: 2002-07-25 17:32:32+00 by: Dan Lyke

Let's pull the child porn thing, because especially in this context that's a red herring, and because in my jaunts through the Tenderloin I'm fairly sure that the only "child porn" one would find there would be the occasional 17 year old, and let's applaud the FBI for using that lure to string him along, and, of course, saying "hell no" in the end, and ask: Might any of his impulses have been channeled less destructively if he'd had unfettered access to porn?

I don't know, my initial reaction is that he's just one of those people who's b0rken like the blights you mentioned, and we can make a long list (Taubman, Parsons, Lay, etc...) of others, the nugget I'd like to grab from this horrendous tale is the possibility that repression and violence are linked.

#Comment made: 2002-07-25 19:01:06+00 by: ebradway

<textquote>Some days I wake up and hope for world peace, and other days I wake up and feel like I can kill everyone</textquote>

Is it just me, or isn't this normal? The difference is this guy has some kind of psychological defect that allows him to override the strong societal guards against murder. This guy isn't a gang member or veteran who has been trained to kill despite an the social norms. This guy is just fucked.

I don't think access to a specific kind of pornography would have helped him at all. I think his extreme fetishism is a symptom of a greater problem and not the cause. This guy is a killer. Sure, repression of child pornography may have kept him from committing this crime, but he was a time-bomb waiting for the right repression.

Conversely, I believe that child pornography is the ultimate test of the first amendment - especially simulated child pornography. As a father, I find most child pornography distasteful - but I also believe that sex-play can be healthy and that it is an adult responsibility to separate fantasy from reality. The reality is that no one's sex play should involve my daughter.

#Comment made: 2002-07-25 19:37:39+00 by: Shawn

The reality is that no one's sex play should involve my daughter.

Ah, you've left an opening for a discussion that I've been thinking about recently. For the sake of academic discussion and study (of attitudes and the reason for them), I'd like to simply start by asking you to elaborate on;

Why?

...and then we can go from there.

#Comment made: 2002-07-25 20:47:32+00 by: petronius

"I can't go to prison for the rest of my life and be happy without seeing it."

Isn't being unhappy the main point of prison in the first place?

#Comment made: 2002-07-25 22:16:12+00 by: Larry Burton

Why?

I guess the biggest reason is that she is still a child. Seriously, she's only about six or seven.

That and the fact that this isn't just anyone's daughter you are talking about, this is Eric's daughter.

#Comment made: 2002-07-25 23:46:19+00 by: Shawn

I guess the biggest reason is that she is still a child. Seriously, she's only about six or seven.

That doesn't really answer the question though. I'm looking for logical reasons presented in a vacuum. Assume the question[er] has no preconceptions provided by society.

To be more specific (and to take the statement literally and at face value);

Why should Eric's daughter and another six year old not engage in sex play?

this is Eric's daughter.

An entirely separate discussion, and one I don't want to get into now - for risk of diluting the discussion on the table - but I think it's worth noting that the obvious question then is "why does that matter?"

#Comment made: 2002-07-25 23:48:01+00 by: Shawn

petronius; For good or ill (ill, IMO) many people don't think so.

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 00:00:11+00 by: Shawn

I just re-read Stayner's quote and something jumped out at me. I think he is absolutely right, although maybe not in the way he intends. He says:

If I had the balls to go to San Francisco...

If he had the balls... I think this is true, but I don't think it would have mattered what he had the balls to do. In a way, he's right. If he'd had the balls to do whatever - to deal with himself, his own needs, demons and desires - then he probably wouldn't have done these things.

...That's my official arm-chair psychoanalysis.

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 00:03:44+00 by: topspin

Shawn, here's my angle on the issue of why adult-child sexplay is unacceptable.

For the reason of the comfort of the child in this culture. In another culture, maybe. In this culture the child would be labelled abused and would feel "bad" whether he/she enjoyed the acts or not.

I'm all for not forcing all the cultural trappings down a kid's throat, but the taboo in this culture regarding sex between adults and children has a ton of momentum. No kid can be expected to stand up to that and feel it was "okay" contact, as I said, even if they enjoyed it.

At BEST it places the child psychologically at odds with 99.9% of the culture which finds the adult-child sexplay abhorant. At WORST, the child is confused and abused.

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 00:05:38+00 by: Dan Lyke

Petronius: While I don't necessarily think that that's what prison is for, none of the alternatives tried thus far seem to have worked, so it sure seems like a reasonable default.

And while this is going the direction that made me pause before putting that item up there (but is being dealt with civilly enough that I'm happy to watch it unfold), I think we all can accept as a ground-rule that anyone who said:

"If I don't confess, it could cost you a lot of time and money to prosecute, what difference is it to viewing a little child pornography in light of the murders of four people?"

is guilty of crimes heinous enough that this is the reason I support the death penalty in theory, if not in practice.

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 00:12:58+00 by: Dan Lyke

Damn, I need to implement threading, that's the second time I've left a conversation thread up too long before clicking submit.

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 00:28:07+00 by: TC

Why?

...and then we can go from there.

hokay I guess we're gonna do this. A child by being a child is inherently incapable of understanding the raminfications of their actions. When they have matured to a point of truly understanding the nature of their actions they are no longer a child.

Shawn: Do you disagree with this?

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 01:17:13+00 by: meuon [edit history]

In my open minded sci-fi world mode, I contend that adult/child sexual relations of the warm loving kind might be possible in a society. With even a small dose of reality from our universe, I see this as bad medicine. Having been involved in more internet child-porn fetishists and with cases involving people that actually do such things, than I wish to contemplate, all I can say is that none of what I have seen is a loving healthy sexual anything. These people have problems that child porn and adult/child sexual anything is just an outward manifestation of.

Worse.. having had to evaluate hundreds (may more than a thousand) images of such dreck, I did not see one image where it looked like both participants were enjoying what was going on, and in many instances the small boys and girls did not understand at all what was going on.

I may be a lousy father, but if an adult had messed with Ryan or Annie while under age, or Cissy (now, or then, she's a special case).. well... I might let the courts deal with them after I was done, but maybe not. And I left that ambiguous on purpose.

Clarification: Under-age legally is under 18. I'll contend that 15-17 years may be a gray area in some cases, I am talking about stuff ranging from babies to puberty (pre-teens).

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 03:30:33+00 by: ebradway

Why?

My daughter is eight years old. She has exhibited no signs of having matured to a point where sex is any kind of reality for her - other than a very abstract concept: how babies are made. Don't get me wrong, this isn't the usual parental denial 'My baby isn't having sex.' This is my understanding of her physiology, just as I understand her capabilities in gymnastics, her eating habits, etc.

If she were involved in a sex act at this point in her life, it would at best thoroughly confuse her as she got older. This assumes that the sex act were loving in nature and not forced. She would, as she goes through puberty, be more likely to express the same sexuality to her peers. Quite likely, before getting out of high school, she would encounter the type of person who would take the loving aspect out of the sex act and traumatize her.

The reality is that pretty much all child pornography is created at the detriment of the children involved. The 'softer' child pornography (like Nabakov) doesn't even involve actual children. I contest that child pornography is acceptible in the abstract. That is, it should be treated like a fantasy much like vampire erotica. It's okay to consider it. It's okay to create it. It's okay to get off on it.

But to get back to my original point, the real problem is fetishists who lose the boundaries between fantasy and reality. The people who get off on child pornography who end up raping young children. I think that there is a similar danger among people so into vampire erotica that they lose track of the fact that they aren't vampires and there aren't any around to fuck. Fortunately for these folks, there aren't any vampires to kill and society is accepting enough of vampire fetishists that they probably get help before really freaking.

Or maybe there is a connection between child-sex fetishists and violent acts?

And Dan, threading would be WAY cool!

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 17:14:42+00 by: Dan Lyke

Eric, I'd be really really surprised if Heidi hasn't experienced some sort of sex play with her peers. Certainly I had by that age, although it wasn't too many years later than that that a societal reaction to such play turned me into such a prude for so many years. But I do agree that sex as kids experience it and sex as adults experience it are different, and that keeping coercion out of the relationship is difficult enough that age differences are an easy (although definitely not foolproof) fallback. And images of people, even in public places, are enough of an ethical quandary in my community that I'm stepping further and further back from the minefield that is children, images and consent.

Where I was hoping we could take this discussion was back to the recurring "pornography and sexual aggression" theme. A few months ago, I linked to Malamuth, Addison, and Koss "Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Are There Reliable Effects and Can We Understand Them". I remember writing a critique of that paper (I was fairly critical) on the SHS mailing list, I don't know if it ever made it to Flutterby, but here we have yet another anecdote that might support the numerous studies which show a negative correlation between the availability of pornography and violent crime. But I think the other issues here are too charged to deal with that one in isolation.

And rather than threading, I need to find a free day and figure out how I'm going to do user validation on the damned news server, given that my first pass at it doesn't seem to like spaces in user names so it's not a simple mapping between user files. Sigh.

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 22:38:24+00 by: Shawn

topspin; I'd say that is a good argument for why sexual play winds up screwing up so many kids. But I don't think that extends to an argument that makes it "unacceptible". IMO, the correct solution is to remove the social stigmitization [of the "victim"].

todd; I disagree with the first sentence. I find the second to be a reasonable definition of "child" but I would argue that this is not the definition that our society uses.

ebradway; Why do you think your daughter would be confused by sexual concepts? Why could she not be given the support, understanding and tools not to be traumatized by some jerk later on?

This isn't turning out at all the way I had intended - not the responses, the focus of the discussion. I think this probably isn't the right venue for such an experiment. I'm falling back to the opinion that this kind of thing would be better carried out in person, where stray threads can be reduced, controlled and/or eliminated. I'll be happy to respond to questions, but I realize that I've lost control of the driving.

#Comment made: 2002-07-26 23:10:17+00 by: topspin [edit history]

Shawn, while the "correct" solution might be to remove the victimization, as I said, the taboo of adult-child sexplay in this society has lots of momentum. Speculating on changing that sorta social moré is windmill tilting, so for practical purposes.... a behavior which winds up screwing up kids needs to remain unacceptable in this culture.

As for the discussion, please lead it where you want it to go. Rant about what you were thinking which prompted the original "Why?" question. I'm game and curious about where you wanna go with this and would welcome the discussion.

#Comment made: 2002-07-27 04:13:17+00 by: meuon

Shawn, I'd also like to see where you want to go, or to at least see where the rabbit hole leads. Whats in your head? Are you turned on by pre-pubescent girls or boys? Do you want to act on it? Are they willing? Do you want to feel empowered by forcing children to do such things?

My answers, just to be fair: I have been aroused by pre-pubescent young girls (both imagery and actual proximity). Such urges are ephemeral and fleeting. I have a active imagination and fantasy ability, but no interest in them even as a fantasy. I do not and would not want to act on it. No, they would not be willing. No, this is not even about power, authority and empowerment, I get those elsewhere.

#Comment made: 2002-07-28 17:58:12+00 by: TC

Shawn:
I assume you are philosophically challenging the precept of adult child relations and I think it's good to challenge societal beliefs. I am probably defensive about this issue as a father of two daughters but since the door has been opened publicly in one of my social(cyber-social?) circles. I feel I'd be remiss to not comment.

My belief is sex is like a lot of issues gaurdians face with their children. My girls will drive cars, fire firearms and have sex for pleasure but hopefully not until they are ready with an understanding of their actions and possible ramiinfications as well prudent precautions.

I tried to give a short definition to apply to the context of this discourse and it is very important that we be able to agree on certain points of logic or this discourse is meaningless and no knowledge can be gained. I am assuming your serious when you ask "why?" so please apply logical reasoning to your statements.todd; I disagree with the first sentence is a little hard for me to understand so I'll ask you "why?" and try to explain the statement of what I thought to be "self evident" logic a little further.

"a child is inherently incapable of understanding the raminfications of their actions"

Sure a child understands that is you drop a penny that it will fall to the ground, but she doesn't understand that dropping a penny off a skyscrapper might be killing someone and furthermore not being able to grasp what killing someone would truly mean.

reasonable definition of "child" but I would argue that this is not the definition that our society uses.
Cool. now we have a definition of a child and yes society likes finite definitions like age. According to dictionary dot com a child is a person between birth and puberty but who cares what society says this is an exercise in logic right?

#Comment made: 2002-07-28 20:53:18+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

topspin; What I had in mind doesn't work at all here - and I see that now. What I had wanted to do was series of point-counterpoint questions (almost like a young one asking "why?", "why?" - but with more substance and clarification). The point being to drill down to find the exact substance of why we - as a society - find such thoughts (of child-adult sex) so abhorrent. Not the subjective, emotion-laden ones but the logical, objective ones. I see now that such an exercise really needs to be conducted in a more controlled environment one-on-one. Thanks for being interested though :-)

As for your other point; it is my belief - my philosophy - that "screwing up people (kids included)" whould be unacceptible. I see the solution you (and the rest of society) proposing to accomplish that in this instance as treating the symptom, not the disease. I prefer to attack the disease directly. Sometimes killing a few windmills is what's required to make the world a better place ;-)

(...deep breath...)

meuon; I am turned on by cuteness - in any package. Regardless of gender or age. I like small breasts, twinkling eyes, pale skin, giggles, etc. I am also turned on by lust, passion and willingness. I am absolutely turned off by unwillingness, coercion and/or pain. For example; my wife likes just a touch of bondage in our sex play (she likes me to tie her up and be rough with her). I have a very hard time doing this. Likewise, despite knowing people who are into it, it is very hard for me to understand the attraction of BDSM on an emotional level. The very thought of forcing anyone to do something sexual makes me ill.

todd;

but she doesn't understand that dropping a penny off a skyscrapper might be killing someone and furthermore not being able to grasp what killing someone would truly mean.

I disagree. I don't know how to logically defend that other than to say: I've been a child - I remember what it was like. I remember what I was capable of understanding. I've also observed adults interacting with children and children interacting with adults. I believe that children are capable of understanding all kinds of things that we don't give them credit for. In general, I think we treat children like they're stupid. And I think that is the largest disservice we do to our children as a society. We hinder them from growing by keeping things from them - all, ostensibly, for their "protection". Bollocks, I say. We're stunting their growth. And then we wonder why we have so many 18 year olds who are not [suddenly] "well adjusted" adults. Exposure to sexuality does not screw children up. Lack of balancing information and support does.

As for the definition issue: I agree with the definition because it does not include age in the equation. [Using this definition] if a 14 year old understands, then they are not a "child". This is a definition I can support whole heartedly. I'll agree that using age as a guideline can be useful (just as using labels like "geek" or "goth" or "bi" can be useful in the right context), but I believe that shoving everybody into the same box for purposes of morality and/or "criminal intent" does more damage than good. As a general rule, I believe that somewhere in the range 11-14, "children" are perfectly capable of reaching a level of understanding and enlightenment where they can make reasonable descisions about their own sexuality and relationships. That said, I also believe that a) there are exceptions to this rule (in both directions) and b) as long as everybody (although, most especially the younger/non-authority, party) is having fun, enjoying themselves and doing what they want to do then "no harm, no foul".

#Comment made: 2002-07-30 03:08:39+00 by: ebradway

Ok, here's a question: who has kids?

I think I see a pattern. The breeders are saying one thing whereas the non-breeders another. As a breeder, I understand both sides of the child porn issue. From my personal observations of my daughter's emotional growth, I don't think it's possible to create child porn using real children without causing harm to the children. But I also agree that as a first amendment issue, simulated child porn can't be illegal. Nor is it necessarily a bad thing. But just as in S&M, you can play the part of a master with slaves, real slavery is bad.

#Comment made: 2002-07-31 20:05:53+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

Ok, here's a question: who has kids?

I answer this because I know, here on Flutterby, it isn't a set-up for; "oh, then you can't possibly understand". I don't [have kids].

I don't think it's possible to create child porn using real children without causing harm to the children.

I'm with you pretty much on everything else, except this. I think it is possible - not necessarily that it happens (I have no association with child porn, so I'm not in the know, one way or the other), or is even likely (which I further attribute to the sex-negative attitude of our culture that creates this issue), just that it's possible.

#Comment made: 2002-07-31 21:06:52+00 by: Larry Burton [edit history]

Years ago I caught my oldest son dancing around in his room without his clothes on. He was about 18 months old at the time. I happened to have my camera with me and I caught him on black and white film, which I developed myself. My wife and I enjoyed the picture and so did his grandparents. A few years later he was old enough to be embarrassed by us sharing the picture with close friends and family so it was put away. My son is now 18 years old instead of 18 months and attitudes have changed. The picture resurfaced during our move to Atlanta a couple of months back. When I saw it I realized that what was once a cute picture I took of my son being a typical baby is now child pornography but my son wasn't harmed by this picture.

I just thought I'd throw that in here.

It also appears that there is still a little trouble with the HTML parser.

#Comment made: 2002-07-31 23:40:07+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

Exactly. One of the questions I have recently asked is:

Let's say, as a child (say 12), I take a [Polaroid] picture of myself nude, in a sexually suggestive pose. Now, as an adult, let's say I make that picture available for download on a site that caters to people who find young boys sexually attractive. Am I guilty of trafficking in child pornography? (The law says 'yes'.) Should I be? Have I been harmed?"

Primarily, my problem with the whole issue is that the brush is far too broad.

(I fixed the larger HTML issue - damned closing tags - but there still appears to be a bolding problem with one of my earlier posts. I think maybe it has to do with the fact that I nested an italics tag inside a bold one.)

#Comment made: 2002-08-01 23:50:50+00 by: TC [edit history]

Sorry for the delay in response but real life and lack of time etc etc. I had hoped someone would have taken up the "Lance of Logic" slogged this thread along to some agreed points but oh well. I'm going to stay on this particular point for this thread as I have very different points of view on the other subjects such as virtual porn. (you can mix peas and corn but it's not really porn)

Shawn:That doesn't really answer the question though. I'm looking for logical reasons presented in a vacuum. Assume the question[er] has no preconceptions provided by society.

I have been trying to address the specific issue of an Adult having sex with a child. This is a taboo in our society and I believe it is with merit. I personally believe that personal freedoms should expand until they infract upon another's freedoms but have to stop there. In this discussion there are 2 relevant classes of people, Children and Adults. I tried to come up with a short simple definition of a child and an Adult

Todd:A child by being a child is inherently incapable of understanding the ramifications of their actions. When they have matured to a point of truly understanding the nature of their actions they are no longer a child.

shawn: todd; I disagree with the first sentence. I find the second to be a reasonable definition of "child" but I would argue that this is not the definition that our society uses.

Shawn I am having trouble with your logic to be able to accept one statement and not the other??? I tried to create a logical dividing line between Adults and Children so we are clear about who is who. I don't think age is reasonable since people mature at different rates...heck I think there some 30somethings that are running about that fit my definition of a child but at some point you have to say "fuck em" be your own look out and our society tends to do that at age 18.

Topspin: Shawn, while the "correct" solution might be to remove the victimization, as I said, the taboo of adult-child sexplay in this society has lots of momentum. Speculating on changing that sorta social moré is windmill tilting, so for practical purposes.... a behavior which winds up screwing up kids needs to remain unacceptable in this culture.

Yeah I think everyone here(well almost everyone) realizes this but sometimes society is wrong or becomes wrong as time goes on. I think Shawn is pretty brave to try to challenge this with logic although I think in this particular case is equally quixotic.

Todd:but she doesn't understand that dropping a penny off a skyscrapper might be killing someone and furthermore not being able to grasp what killing someone would truly mean.

Shawn:I disagree. I don't know how to logically defend that other than to say: I've been a child - I remember what it was like. I remember what I was capable of understanding. I've also observed adults interacting with children and children interacting with adults.

Well ya jumped the logic tracks here. While we all apply personal experience to make conclusions you are offering subjective observations of one person in 6 Billion and if we are going to do that the closest we'll come to science is with those wiley statistics and if we were to poll the general populace I think you have an idea where that would go. You bring up under estimating children and I agree that's a problem but if you are weighing that against psychological harm you really need to assess risk reward very carefully.

I believe that Children are a protected class of people (maybe that will draw Dan out from under the couch) and we do not hold them as accountable for their actions(though sometimes we need to slap their parents) and do not allow them to engage in activities that can cause themselves or others harm because of lack of maturity(understanding/wisdom).

#Comment made: 2002-08-02 01:12:08+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

I have been trying to address the specific issue of an Adult having sex with a child. This is a taboo in our society and I believe it is with merit.

I agree that this is a reasonable argument, if we're using your definition of "child". But, as I noted, society doesn't use that definition. Perhaps it's my fault for suggesting the vacuum. What I meant was; free of societal predispositions with regard to morality, but not with regards to basic definitions. We can make anything true (or false) if we can make the definitions what we want them to be.

I tried to create a logical dividing line between Adults and Children so we are clear about who is who.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in that, even though I think it's a reasonable definition as far as it goes (with one caveat - see below), I don't accept it as a baseline for the current discussion.

One other note about your definition. You said:

A child by being a child is inherently incapable of understanding the ramifications of their actions. When they have matured to a point of truly understanding the nature of their actions they are no longer a child.

I would note that the term "incapable" is extremely important here. Most eight year-olds (just to pick a random number) in our society may not, in fact, understand the ramifications of certain actions. But I don't buy the argument that these same "children" are incapable of such understanding. They don't understand because we don't see fit to teach them and provide them with the tools and knowledge to understand. That is a far cry from being "incapable".

Well ya jumped the logic tracks here.

(-shrug-) Maybe. Depends on your definition of "logic", I guess. I'm not trying to make a scientific thesis here. Maybe I should have called it personal logic or a reasoned opinion. I'm not the kind of person who takes studies, theses (is that right, for the plural of 'thesis'?) or presented causes at face value. I make my opinions from observation, experience and my own belief system.

I fancy myself a bit of a philosopher, not a scientist. The exercise I started all this out with was not intended to prove anything. Rather, it was intended to establish, for my own edification, why so many people feel as they do about adult/child sex, or even just child sex - what are the real reasons for their anger and fear. Personally, I suspect that most people don't even know (another point for which I now see Flutterby was a poor place to start such an exercise). My exercise was intended to help explore those reasons.

but if you are weighing that against psychological harm you really need to assess risk reward very carefully.

Your implied point assumes that there is significant psychological harm to be had. Another point of the same argument that, IMO, needs debate - not just blind acceptance. And perhaps that's where I should have started. Can you provide a clear example of the kind of "harm" you're talking about. So far, Eric has been the only one to do so (Quite likely, before getting out of high school, she would encounter the type of person who would take the loving aspect out of the sex act and traumatize her.) To which I would respond that such a person/event/traumatization could easily happen without any previous sexual activity on [his daughter's] part. The stated harm is in no way connected to the [stated, hypothetical] sex [possibly, hypothetically, with an "adult"] she had previously.

#Comment made: 2002-08-02 06:18:41+00 by: topspin [edit history]

Shawn, I'll address why I am so leery of adult-child sexual contact. I've had intimate partners (more than one) who were involved in adult-child sex..... incest. I've heard their stories and it starts out like this: "I liked it at first. It felt good. I felt grown up and loved....." and they end with a woman who feels ashamed, guilty, and angry.

Be as philosophical as you want about the topic.... keep it as abstract as you wish.... but when you've held a sobbing woman for a coupla hours because she's revealed her familiy's "terrible secret," it will quickly dawn on you that adult-child sex hurts.

#Comment made: 2002-08-02 17:20:18+00 by: TC

I am sorry Shawn but at this point you have hypothetical'd this thread beyond any reasonable use(at least to me). It has been my experience that when people debate the definition of words such as logic that one side is thrashing about and turns it into a semantic argument to avoid some loss of face.

I think you and I fundamentally disagree on a child's capacities and because of this you will refute damages done to them. You can teach children about disease, pregnancy and complex relationships but they will NOT understand the gravity. It's not a question of intelligence but wisdom and that is something that is acquired over time. I don't expect you to get this Shawn because after rereading this thread I really don't think you understand children. If true love were to occur between an Adult and a child then the adult can wait till the child matures. It would be inherently EVIL to rob that child of their one chance of not having to deal with adult issues.

#Comment made: 2002-08-02 19:44:09+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

topspin;

"I liked it at first. It felt good. I felt grown up and loved....."

What changed that?

and they end with a woman who feels ashamed, guilty, and angry.

Do you think this might be because somebody [outside of the situation] convinced her that she should feel this way?

it will quickly dawn on you that adult-child sex hurts.

That's one interpretation. Another is that the [societal] reaction to adult-child sex hurts. Society's treatment of overweight children also hurts - as does its treatment of nerdy/geeky kids. But we don't have laws throwing people in jail for overfeeding children or buying them computers and pocket protectors.

todd;

I'm not debating the textbook definition of logic. (In fact, I don't see anything in the definition link that you provided which counters my interpretation.) What I am saying is that "logic" might not have been the best, most clear word for me to have used in the way I did. My first try at communicating an idea or opinion seldom comes across clearly the first time around. That's why I hate telephones and stumble through idle chit-chat - I much prefer written forms of communication, which (usually) give me an opportunity to refine my point and how I express it (sometimes over the course days, weeks or months).

they will NOT understand the gravity.

You don't know that. You can't know with any certainty what another person understands, because it can't be measured except with subjective means - measured against your understanding. What if your understanding is wrong? What if your understanding is valid for you, but not for another person - with other circumstances, a different past, a different personality, different ideals, different experiences?

wisdom and that is something that is acquired over time.

Yep, that's right. Wisdom is aquired through experience and reasoning. By denying children experiences (and open discussion of those experiences), we stunt the growth of their own wisdom. Then we point to that lack of wisdom and claim it as a reason for withholding those experiences. It's a circular argument.

I certainly do "get it". I just don't buy into the popular believe that wisdom only comes with age (which, interestingly enough always seems to be touted by somebody older than you...)

I really don't think you understand children.

A common response, which I'm used to. And that's fine, because my position is based, in large part, on the reverse - I don't believe that you (or, more precisely, those who hold to your expressed beliefs/reasons on this matter) truly understand children. Of course, we'll never know for sure either way - neither of us being children right now. But it's a convenient position for those making the rules to take. Once you've declared that [any class of people] can't possibly understand the ramifications/gravity of a situation, you don't have to listen to them even if they speak up to say otherwise.

one chance of not having to deal with adult issues.

This assumes that you accept the premise that it is an adult issue. Now I think we're getting close to the core of what I had hoped to uncover with my initially intended exercise, although not with the clarity I had hoped for from the journey :-/ But I suspect that asking why [you believe] sex is an adult issue will just wind up running us in circles at this point.

#Comment made: 2002-08-02 19:55:11+00 by: Shawn

you have hypothetical'd this thread beyond any reasonable use(at least to me)

I'm confused by this. You are the one who wanted to use a hypothetical definition of "children" - by which I mean one that our society (which makes the laws under question) does not use.

I'm sorry you feel the discussion is no longer useful. I thank you for your input so far, it has been reasonably beneficial to me.

#Comment made: 2002-08-03 02:19:26+00 by: topspin

"I liked it at first. It felt good. I felt grown up and loved....." What changed that?

Something I've noticed, Shawn, about this thread is a distinct lack of females commenting. Were there a special dispensation of "anonymous" here, I suspect you'd get a better answer than I can provide, but I'll try.

One lady pointed to things moving beyond her comfort zone..... of course, you'll simply say that evidence is "cultural" and without the pressure of society the child might've been comfy with the contact. The fact is: she wasn't, but she felt in too deep.... didn't wanna disappoint her Dad.... didn't know how to respond to his manipulative, "But you were Daddy's good girl before?"

The other lady was involved with her brother, she was 8, he was 16. His touch made her feel mature and accepted.... he would hang out with her more. In her case, again, it went beyond the comfort zone and he became less manipulative and more brutally forceful. Her situation was terribly compounded because her parents blamed him and her (because she'd originally agreed to some sexual contact and touching.) The truth was.... it wasn't her idea. She had no clue where the path went and was with an older person she trusted. She asked to stop the contact and he refused.

and they end with a woman who feels ashamed, guilty, and angry. Do you think this might be because somebody [outside of the situation] convinced her that she should feel this way?

No. It's because they were manipulated (intentionally or unintentionally.... it doesn't matter) by someone with better social skills than themselves. Kids instinctively wanna play with other kids. These women might've chosen neighborhood boys close to their age and explored their sexuality without having the issue of feeling "more mature" and "accepted" and "grown up" thrown into the mix. With a peer, no is easy to say. With someone perceived as more advanced, no is difficult because participating gives you that "aura" of being "in the big league." Worse than peer pressure, Shawn, is the notion.... implied or explicit: "This is what the big people do, ya know? Ah, but you're still a kid aren't you...."

Shawn, you're missing it. These women weren't hurt by society. They were hurt by someone (intentionally or unintentionally) using a position of "coolness" and "power" to take them into places where they were unfamiliar and more importantly... into places where they would have a tough time stopping the momentum of the journey.

I honestly think you're completely unwilling to see that kids are kids..... they need the fumbling, shy, clueless sexuality of another kid to complement their own sexual innocence, not the knowing touch of an adult. There is no way the balance can be level in that situation.

Regardless of cuteness, attractiveness, or allure of an 11yo or whatever, I am not the person who needs to go with her on an exploration of sexuality because it's not exploration for me. If it's not exploration, it's leading on my part. And leading is manipulation, albeit usually with consent, as that person who is the leader decides the direction.... decides where new ground is broken. But I know where the direction leads and it's not new ground for me, sexually, so what am I doing with the 11yo? I'm manipulating her in the direction I wanna go. I'm controlling her sexuality.

Adult-child sexual contact isn't about cuteness, Shawn. It's about controlling the situation.

#Comment made: 2002-08-03 03:37:09+00 by: Larry Burton

Let me add a few more of my thoughts in here. I don't know where I'm going with them but they are things that keep popping up in my head as I read where this thread keeps going.

  1. There is a physical side to sex along with the emotional side. The term sexual maturity means something here. Pre-pubescent youngsters are not physically ready for regular sex, especially with an adult. The parts just don't fit comfortably. They are also lacking the body chemistry to power a sex drive. This ought to tell us something about the appropriateness of adults having sex with children.
  2. Regardless of how much we want to blame society for a lack of open mindedness about adults having sex with children, regardless of what we might think of changing society to be more open-minded in the sexuality of children, society has this taboo about children having sex so ingrained that it just isn't going to change much along those lines in any of our lifetimes. We might say it ought not be that way but the simple fact is that it is that way and it ain't agonna change. We will have to live with it.

Now personally I don't agree with the way our country's legal system handles adult sex with post-pubescent teens. I think that the circumstances surrounding each of these cases should be taken into consideration. Howevr, I have no problem at all condemning any adult that has sex with a pre-pubescent child. If that's being closed minded, so be it. I do believe that there are some things that are still either open or shut. The nude photos of young children is still something, though, that should be taken on a case by case basis. Just my 2¢.

#Comment made: 2002-08-05 22:33:27+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

Larry; I am in complete, 100% agreement with you - except for how to handle point #2. Since when is "not going to see it in our lifetime" a good argument for not working towards something? Should the first people to speak up about abolishing slavery not have bothered? Have the first astronomers to look at the moon as a destination lived to see us set foot there?

Another generic note that I haven't brought up before is that many (if not most) of the very same laws we have today, which are [supposedly] designed to "protect" children [from being exposed to sex and sexuality] originally included women alongside children and "the poor" as classes of people who needed "protection". We [society] were wrong about the "delicate sensibilities" of women. Is it such a stretch to think maybe we're [still] wrong about children(1) in this regard?

topspin; You will get no excuses from me for the behavior of the men in the examples you cite. And if you thought you would, then you don't really understand my position on the matter. Rape is rape, regardless of the age, gender, position, etc. of the victim and perpetrator. Everyone has the right to say no at any time, for any reason and to have that decision respected. I only asked as a point of clarification, not as an end argument against your assertion.

We already have generic laws that address rape, coercion and sexual relations between persons where one is in a supervisory or authoritarian position over another, and I stand firmly behind those laws. Likely, where we differ is in that I don't believe (aside from parents, teachers, police officers and the like) all adults are generic authority figures over children - and I don't believe that we should teach and encourage our children to believe that they are.

Adult-child sexual contact isn't about cuteness, Shawn. It's about controlling the situation.

A common assertion/belief, and one that well supports the argument for the current mindset. But it is exactly this kind of arrogantly presumptive blanket generalization that I am speaking out against. See my previous note regarding what we cannot know about what is actually going on inside another's head. Certainly it may be about control for some, but not for all and maybe not even for as many as you may think. There is a similar phenomenon that occurs in both prostitution and pornography: Guys (it's usually guys) who make porn are mostly jerks. Is this because porn is bad and/or attracts only a bad element? No, it's because our society's treatment of pornographers is so vitrolic and nasty that only the most hard-skinned jerks can survive in the industry. Likewise, many prostitutes (working illegally) are abused and/or attacked by a fairly large percentage of their pimps or johns. Is this because only assholes with no respect for women are drawn to sex-workers? No, it's because society's treatement of those who traffic in money for sex drives away the balancing element of a nicer, more considerate customer base. Abusive, coercive, manipulative, controlling jerks are the only ones who have sex with kids (or, more precisely, the only ones we hear about having sex with kids) because they are the only ones arrogant, manipulative and controlling enough to think they can get away with doing so without getting caught and going to jail.

As a final note; you're right that I don't see kids as "kids". I see them as people - and thus due all the respect, consideration and fairness of such.

And with that, I think this conversation has pretty much exhausted itself. If someone wants to have the last word I'll be sure to read it. But I'm not going to drive this topic like I have been. Classes start for me tonight and I'm going to need to focus on that, as well as taking care of all the appropriate financial issues to start my degree program in earnest come Fall Quarter.

(1) Those under 18 years of age.

#Comment made: 2003-04-17 21:36:11.447444+00 by: john

I think that he is right in the land of the free they are not legaly avalible. but if you go to other counterys around the world it is. about 10 years ago I was in south america and I was at the time only 10 years old. I had sexual relations with a 40 yearold man and I loved it I have no problem with a person who wants to havesex with little kids.

#Comment made: 2003-04-20 04:00:10.96773+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

I feel it's worth noting - for clarity sake, if nothing else - that I do not advocate having "sex with little kids".