Need Some Advice-Working With Children *May trigger*

Platypus wrote:Would you agree that "harmful", "non-consensual" and "not enjoyable" all have separate meanings?

Yes

So that it is possible for an event to be consensual and enjoyable, but at the same time be harmful?

I suppose, like junkies find heroin, yes.

And for an event to be harmful and non-consensual, however still be enjoyable?

Sorry, but I can't see how someone can enjoy something that they do not want to do and is harming them.

Shrink Rap wrote:This is really far-fetched. If he enjoyed it, why would it have had to be a rape in the first place?

I do not believe "rape" is defined by the victim's emotional reaction, but by their lack of consent.

So why are they not consenting to something they like?

Shrink Rap wrote:Your stance appears contradictory. You see how these laws cause more harm than good, yet you continue to support them.

I don't feel that my views are contradictory here. Water is good for us, yet drink too much and you can die from it. Most things in life seem to work best in moderation. Unfortunately hysteria is rarely moderate.

Not a good analogy. It is not a matter of just a little law or a lot. Either the law causes more harm than good, or it does not. If it causes more harm, get rid of it.

tlkproxy wrote:I just wanted to get your opinions on this Platypus and ShrinkRap (and anyone else who would like to share) because it's very interesting. The issue of pedophilia and adult/minor sexuality seems to be one that isn't dealt with in moderation.

I agree completely. The laws are draconian and have gone completely overboard. When one can receive more prison time for photographing the erect penis of a 17-year-old than for killing or attempting to kill him, something is seriously wrong.

However, it sounds to me (and correct me if i'm wrong) like ShrinkRap is trying to demonstrate that the issue isn't so clear cut, and is highlighting with evidence the existence of a moderate, middle road - a challenging grey area that is more difficult to comprehend. One where sexual contact with minors (though not young children from what i can see from the examples) doesn't necessarily have to be harmful.

That is right. As the evidence shows, young people having sex is not necessarily harmful. I realize that this might violate someone's moral principles, and if people want to continue to make such activity illegal, that is their prerogative. Just do not try to justify it with phony assertions like, "it will ruin the kid for life." Obviously, I am only talking about circumstances in which both parties were willing participants, and not those in which anyone was coerced into sexual activity against his or her will.

Shrink Rap wrote:Sorry, but I can't see how someone can enjoy something that they do not want to do and is harming them.

Which part is the roadblock for you? The harmful or the non-consensual?

Shrink Rap wrote:So why are they not consenting to something they like?

Perhaps because they did not know they would like it. So whilst they did not consent, after the fact they found it to be an enjoyable experience.

Or perhaps because they have a negative association towards consent. People sometimes do not consent to what they want, or consent to things they do not want. I suspect submissive people and children are even more prone to this.

Shrink Rap wrote:Not a good analogy. It is not a matter of just a little law or a lot. Either the law causes more harm than good, or it does not. If it causes more harm, get rid of it.

Which law? If you're referring to the illegality of sex with minors, than my personal belief is that it does more good. That doesn't mean it only does good. I'm not sure there are any laws which don't have negative affects. Of course others may have different views.

Shrink Rap wrote:When one can receive more prison time for photographing the erect penis of a 17-year-old than for killing or attempting to kill him, something is seriously wrong.

I definitely agree with this.

Shrink Rap wrote:Obviously, I am only talking about circumstances in which both parties were willing participants, and not those in which anyone was coerced into sexual activity against his or her will.

And my point is that I believe even if the child is willing, it does not make sexual encounters acceptable. Whilst they may consent and enjoy it, it may still be harmful. The law exists to protect against harm in my opinion.

Platypus wrote:

Shrink Rap wrote:Sorry, but I can't see how someone can enjoy something that they do not want to do and is harming them.

Which part is the roadblock for you? The harmful or the non-consensual?

I guess it is the combo of the three: enjoyment, non-consent, and harm, but it is probably not worth going into more detail.

Shrink Rap wrote:So why are they not consenting to something they like?

Perhaps because they did not know they would like it. So whilst they did not consent, after the fact they found it to be an enjoyable experience.

Or perhaps because they have a negative association towards consent. People sometimes do not consent to what they want, or consent to things they do not want. I suspect submissive people and children are even more prone to this.

Sorry, but I am not really good at these hypothetical, bizarre scenarios. I'd prefer not to mangle the language and just let words mean what they are supposed to. I just cannot get into this whole hair-splitting of "consenting" but "not wanting to."

Shrink Rap wrote:Not a good analogy. It is not a matter of just a little law or a lot. Either the law causes more harm than good, or it does not. If it causes more harm, get rid of it.

Which law? If you're referring to the illegality of sex with minors, than my personal belief is that it does more good. That doesn't mean it only does good. I'm not sure there are any laws which don't have negative affects. Of course others may have different views.

The law you referred to about hugging distressed kids. If you think that does more good, we'll just have to disagree then, I guess.

Shrink Rap wrote:Obviously, I am only talking about circumstances in which both parties were willing participants, and not those in which anyone was coerced into sexual activity against his or her will.

And my point is that I believe even if the child is willing, it does not make sexual encounters acceptable. Whilst they may consent and enjoy it, it may still be harmful. The law exists to protect against harm in my opinion.

I guess that depends upon who is doing the accepting. Your opinion is in disregard of my previous demonstration of how the majority of sex abuse does not lead to lasting harm.

Shrink Rap wrote:Sorry, but I am not really good at these hypothetical, bizarre scenarios. I'd prefer not to mangle the language and just let words mean what they are supposed to. I just cannot get into this whole hair-splitting of "consenting" but "not wanting to."

Ah sorry, it is clear in my head, but maybe I am not explaining it well.

Consent doesn't always follow desire.
As an example, a woman may strongly desire to have sex on a first date. However she may believe that consenting to such an act would be shameful or undignified. So she will say "No" instead of “Yes”.

A minor may not want to have sex, but may believe that failing to consent will make them lose the affections of the person interested in them, or make them appear immature or ungracious. So they will say “Yes” instead of “No.”

A person can consent to something that they don't actually want. I suspect this is more likely if the person giving consent is submissive, a child, or has lower status (such as a student-teacher or patient-doctor relationship) etc.

I know that I as an adult have said "Yes" to things that I didn't want because it was the easiest (least threatening) option. I imagine a child would have even greater difficulty asserting themselves, especially when faced with an adult they trusted and respected, or were intimidated by.

Shrink Rap wrote:The law you referred to about hugging distressed kids. If you think that does more good, we'll just have to disagree then, I guess.

That wasn't a law; it was a spoken rule on a children's camp. As it was, I ended-up breaking it anyway (unintentionally) and nobody said anything. But yes, it definitely frustrates me that there is such paranoia about hugging other people’s children. And I think that camp rule (if enforced probably does more harm than good.

Shrink Rap wrote:I guess that depends upon who is doing the accepting. Your opinion is in disregard of my previous demonstration of how the majority of sex abuse does not lead to lasting harm.

I am not meaning to disregard your data Shrink Rap. I am not an educated person. I have not read the full study you cited, nor do I pretend to fully understand the ramifications.

But my opinion is that some child sex abuse is harmful, even when the child consents to it. I cannot quote the percentage of cases that are harmful, but I believe it is significant enough to warrant prohibition of sexual relations between adult and children.

That may mean for the children who would have found it to be a "neutral" or "positive" experience as per your examples, they will miss out on those experiences. But many laws provide protection (and thus restriction) to those who feel they do not need it.