Pedofilia and cultural context

[angrychimp]

Touch a child in a sexual way and you should be "Hanged by the neck until dead".

No "in depth" discussions.

No "What ifs"

No bullshit.

Closed Minded? Perhaps.

The right attitude? You bet.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Touch a child in a sexual way and you should be "Hanged by the neck until dead".

No "in depth" discussions.

No "What ifs"

No bullshit.

Closed Minded? Perhaps.

The right attitude? You bet.

So you would draw lines around "naughty bits" and say anyone who touches them is a pedo? Even if the intent is to get the child to giggle a bit and relax at a difficult moment?

I'm simply saying that your cut-and-dried "rules" have a huge amount of ambiguity to them, no doubt culturally driven. I see two year old girls at the beach with bikini tops on, and wonder "what the fuck".

[floppit]

Touch a child in a sexual way and you should be "Hanged by the neck until dead".

No "in depth" discussions.

No "What ifs"

No bullshit.

Closed Minded? Perhaps.

The right attitude? You bet.

Even though it is that attitude that keeps children silent bout abuse? That attitude satisfies you, keeps you happy, it is rarely what children want to happen to people they still love, so they don't tell, they FREQUENTLY stay silent because they are afraid of what will happen to the abuser. It's not a 'what if' that they so easily dismiss.

[Trolldor]

Being a pedophile is a very distinct brand of sick fuck. It is possible to be attracted to someone inspite of their age and which can still be pretty fucking wrong, but a pedophile's attraction is explicitly because of their age and physical characteristics. It is not 'personality' or 'intelligence' it is 'underdeveloped child's body'. Pedophilia is not 'awwwwright' in any context, even "mutually consenting and lovingly" (BULLSHIT, a nine year old is not fucking capable of understanding an adult relationship).

The whole point of the 'age of consent' is protection for children against exploitation. The whole reason that pedophilia is taboo is because a child is motherfucking programmed to respond to authority, and it is usually authority which leads to the sexual abuse of children.

Edit: Above is not a response to floppit, just my own rant.

I think, when considering harm in reference to children it's worth changing the language a bit to aid clarity. While it's bad English I prefer to say and think 'harms' this is because there is rarely one single source of harm to be considered, and focussing just on one is just about the best way to lose sight of the child's best interests and it's that which must, above all things, remain centre stage.

No sexual relationship between an adult and a child is "in the child's best interests" except in the rather extreme cases. I know you aren't advocating anything of the sort, but I just thought it would be an important point to make. Nothing about a pedophilic relationship can be 'in the child's best interests' unless the alternatives are worse, and where the alternatives are worse the child shouldn't fucking be there in the first place.
And there are of course multiple causes of harm, and splitting a family up may cause problems, but weighing the systematic abuse of a child by a parent or guardian against them not having a mummy or daddy around, I think I can see the best position to take. It's no contest.

In terms of the cultural context of sexualised behaviour with children, this may impact on the harms that a child faces, it may reduce aspects such as shame but increase the physical implications or rates of prevalence. Either way, each setting must be viewed in it's own right prior to suggested action, I believe this is true even at a philosophical level. Some considerations are what the alternatives are for the child, what courses of action are possible and what harm to the child will be done as a result of intervention - only a bloody fool thinks no harm comes from splitting families, it is often still necessary because it's the lesser harm but there is harm. When it comes to punishing the abuser it's not simple either - I've lost count of how many times I've heard people wax lyrical about what they'd like to happen to abusers, children hear these things too, children often still love the abuser, children can and do keep secrets.

Yes, very much so. There's no possible way it could be considered straight 'black and white' because the world operates in grey. But the splitting of a family is far less harmful than keep a child in contact with their abuser, particularly when the abuser wasn't violent or forceful, but persuasive.

Where there is cultural abuse it's not OK to put centre stage our feelings about it and leave out the impact our reactions might have on their lives.

Unavoidable, however. Nobody can behave objectively to the mistreatment of a child without a great deal of either experience or an absence of emotion. Or they get all hot and bothered by it.

If a whole community is involved it effects what options are available, like finding a home with a relative rather than a stranger, or even being able to still see friends. Child genital mutilation is good example, you can't remove the children from every family that practices it - there would be nowhere for them to go, you can't easily persuade by ranting, you can only enforce by children making complaints because it is, by it's nature, very private. Like Chinese foot binding these things take a long time to deal with and along the way their cause is helped by all those who keep in mind the complexity of harms and keep the child's best interests central - also along the way the process is hindered by people adopting the cause out of their own disgust, or to further their own beliefs, increase their own power, or just 'be right' and get to point at someone else who's wrong.

Education in communities is what combats inbuilt cultural abuse. An absence of the understanding of their actions does not justify it, but it does explain it and allow you the opportunity to know how to successfully combat it. But the abuse of children within the 'educated' and 'developed world' is not done in the absence of understanding. It is done with the full knowledge of the consequences of their actions, and these people don't care. It's all about their sick wants, they like to convince themselves they're "normal", that it's just another twisted but acceptable sexual preference. Well sorry you sick fuck, but wanting to fuck a child is levels above shitting on yourself.
It won't matter how 'repentant' they are or how much they 'regret' their actions, they're still sick fucks deep down inside.

As a side issue I get SO pissed off with the attention paid to other non western cultures when it seems to me little is known about our own. Most people think that kids wind up in care because of abuse, some do but it's a minority, the majority are just put their by parents who don't want them. The UK isn't very big and we're talking 10's of thousands of children currently unwanted. Little ones find foster homes, not always suitable ones but at least a home, teens do not fair so well. Most people think the majority of children who wind up in care have a criminal record - in the late 1990's it was actually less than 2% who came into care with a record. Most people think a rescued child is better off but statistically (from early 2000's) the siblings left in the home appear to still do better. Most people think we look after our kids and that treating children like poo is what others do - I don't foster, there is nowhere for me to point the finger as if I care for our children. I hate the subject becoming a bonding process on how much better we are - mostly (although not always) time would be better spent getting our own act together. I get really sick of children being used as pawns in bigger battles, I'm all for action but action that acknowledges and weighs up carefully the reality of how intervention effect and usually do harm (hopefully less than the abuse) children too.

We've been learning a bit about our involvement in suspected cases of abuse as teachers and it's really been pissing me off. You can actually doom a child to a life of abuse if you even ask the wrong question, because someone that "taints" the investigation. If you suspect abuse, all you can do is report it to the principle, and all they can do is report it to DOCS (Department of Child Safety). So if you hug a kid, you're a pedophile, and if you ask a kid any questions you help those who are abusing the kid.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BAA, "being a pedophile" is a bad thing, I agree. But there is such rampant paranoia about the possibility that the gray area is often ignored. I once saw a bill before Congress that mandated that people who had been accused of improper acts with a minor be place on the Sexual Predator list until they were proven innocent of such charges. That's the state of the debate right now.

[angrychimp]

Even though it is that attitude that keeps children silent bout abuse? That attitude satisfies you, keeps you happy, it is rarely what children want to happen to people they still love, so they don't tell, they FREQUENTLY stay silent because they are afraid of what will happen to the abuser. It's not a 'what if' that they so easily dismiss.

I expected such a counter when I posted.
When you say "they", you talking about folks from my boat.

Without going into too much detail I can tell you I have been the victim and know another victim of childhood abuse. My ranting isn't some third person view from a self righteous keyboard warrior.
I look back now and wish beyond anything someone with my attitude had come along to help me. Kids can't have "discussions" on this. They stay silent because they don't comprehend what's happening. They need to be saved.

I didn't love my abuser nor did my friend love his.

There's no punishment too cruel for an adult who violates a child.

No exceptions.

[FBM]

Is it harmful? Is it abusive? Is it manipulative, etc? If the answer is 'yes', then it's wrong to do it.

Is it pleasant? Is it beneficial? Is it nurturing? If the answer is 'yes', then it's a good thing.

The legal age of consent is said to be a "necessary evil" (in that any idiot can see that 15 years and 364 days old is insignificantly different from 16 years old), but that's just a matter of legalistic convenience that is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever. The problem is mainly that people want a quick-and-easy formula that relieves them of the effort required to examine each case on its own merits and exercise judgement and common sense.

[floppit]

No sexual relationship between an adult and a child is "in the child's best interests" except in the rather extreme cases. I know you aren't advocating anything of the sort, but I just thought it would be an important point to make. Nothing about a pedophilic relationship can be 'in the child's best interests' unless the alternatives are worse, and where the alternatives are worse the child shouldn't fucking be there in the first place.
And there are of course multiple causes of harm, and splitting a family up may cause problems, but weighing the systematic abuse of a child by a parent or guardian against them not having a mummy or daddy around, I think I can see the best position to take. It's no contest.

Remember we are discussing whole cultures though, there aren't going to be places to put the children! That is the reality - unless you build massive orphanages and typically, if you do, you get what happens in massive holding pens for children - institutionalised abuse. So the abuse stays and any other benefits of a family are gone. It's not always a no brainer.

But the splitting of a family is far less harmful than keep a child in contact with their abuser, particularly when the abuser wasn't violent or forceful, but persuasive.

If you have somewhere safe to put the child. Do you think the UK care system is always safe? Do you think a care system big enough to remove the children from everyone in a culture that abuses would ever be safe?

Unavoidable, however. Nobody can behave objectively to the mistreatment of a child without a great deal of either experience or an absence of emotion. Or they get all hot and bothered by it.

But it is the children not our feelings that matter - it is possible to recognise one's own feelings and at least attempt to stick them firmly in the back seat - it is certainly possible not to revel in them to no purpose (not suggesting you are, just that it happens).

[Trolldor]

BAA, "being a pedophile" is a bad thing, I agree. But there is such rampant paranoia about the possibility that the gray area is often ignored. I once saw a bill before Congress that mandated that people who had been accused of improper acts with a minor be place on the Sexual Predator list until they were proven innocent of such charges. That's the state of the debate right now.

That to me is just being a fucking stupid.

As far as I'm concerned either you are or you aren't, and until such a time as it is proven you are you deserve the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who thinks that 'accusing' is sufficient enough evidence to condemen is dirt and scum. This is the kind of shit which ruins someone's life. Private convictions are your own business, you can be convinced someone is something that's your own fucking business, but please best not act on it until you have proof, mkay?

But it is the children not our feelings that matter - it is possible to recognise one's own feelings and at least attempt to stick them firmly in the back seat - it is certainly possible not to revel in them to no purpose (not suggesting you are, just that it happens).

As I said, it would take either a great deal of experience to really objectively assess a situation, familiarity with it is the only thing that can breed objectivity and comprehension.

Remember we are discussing whole cultures though, there aren't going to be places to put the children! That is the reality - unless you build massive orphanages and typically, if you do, you get what happens in massive holding pens for children - institutionalised abuse. So the abuse stays and any other benefits of a family are gone. It's not always a no brainer.

It typically happens because of the way orphanages are run and whom by. As a 'no brainer', well it sort of is. Take them out of the abusive environment and put them in a non-abusive one. The problem is not that the solution is 'unclear' but rather that access to it is marred corruption and else.

[Pappa]

...a nine year old is not fucking capable of understanding an adult relationship...

Are you sure that can be applicable across all cultures, or merely our own. I'm pretty sure it is not universal. I have heard fairly good arguments that the whole concept of childhood is very different in modern times to how it was regarded by cultures in the past. Children worked just like adults in almost all cultures in the past. They dressed like adults and in general were married at much younger ages than is legal in most western countries now. Iron age Britons used to have their kids weeding the fields as soon as they were able to walk. All of those things (and more) combined, suggest to me that our understanding and demarcation of 'childhood' is different from that in other cultures and is therefore not universal to all human groups.

[Trolldor]

A child is capable of "comprehending" the motions, but not understanding the whole spectrum that it involves.

Let me put it this way, I was trying to teach these kids a simple freestyle drill. Seven kicks, three arms, seven kicks. Breath on the arms. They nodded, they understood (I know this because of the questions they asked), but none of them could do it. They weren't use to it, they could all do freestyle, and they could do the simple drills, but not this because they hadn't had any of the time to develop co-ordination for it.

A child dealing with adult relationships is very much the same. A five year old will proudly declare he will marry his mother, or maybe the four or five girls he hangs out with at school. This doesn't mean he understands what marriage is, only what form it takes.

[Pappa]

A child is capable of "comprehending" the motions, but not understanding the whole spectrum that it involves.

Let me put it this way, I was trying to teach these kids a simple freestyle drill. Seven kicks, three arms, seven kicks. Breath on the arms. They nodded, they understood (I know this because of the questions they asked), but none of them could do it. They weren't use to it, they could all do freestyle, and they could do the simple drills, but not this because they hadn't had any of the time to develop co-ordination for it.

A child is much the same. A five year old will proudly declare he will marry his mother, or maybe the four or five girls he hangs out with at school. This doesn't mean he understands what marriage is, only what form it takes.

You're talking about kids specifically from your own culture though BAA, and extrapolating their understanding/experience to be representative of all children across all cultures and all time periods. That not likely to be the case.

[Trolldor]

No? A child's comprehension is based on time and culture and not biology and brainfunction, not on experience and education?

[FBM]

You're all trying to generalize on an issue that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Individuals mature at different chronological ages. Stop trying for the quick-and-easy formula, you lazy bastids! Evaluate each case on its own merits. Shiela/Fred may be ready for it at 18, but Linda/Hank may be ready for it at 15. There is no universal chronological age at which everyone is magically 'ready'. Fuck, I've known some 21-y.o. people that weren't mature enough to handle a sexual relationship. Get off this hypothetical bullshit and look at the reality that actually surrounds you. Jeez, are we still stuck in the same mindset as Kant with his freakin' Categorical Imperative? There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the appropriate age for introduction to sexuality.

[Trolldor]

You're all trying to generalize on an issue that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Individuals mature at different chronological ages. Stop trying for the quick-and-easy formula, you lazy bastids! Evaluate each case on its own merits. Shiela/Fred may be ready for it at 18, but Linda/Hank may be ready for it at 15. There is no universal chronological age at which everyone is magically 'ready'. Fuck, I've known some 21-y.o. people that weren't mature enough to handle a sexual relationship. Get off this hypothetical bullshit and look at the reality that actually surrounds you. Jeez, are we still stuck in the same mindset as Kant with his freakin' Categorical Imperative? There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the appropriate age for introduction to sexuality.

Nobody believes in a magical point at the stroke of midnight on their umpteenth birthday that they are suddenly 'ready for it' but a "case-by-case" basis is far too fucking consuming for the legal system. Draw a line and stick to it, it saves you time and effort and money and guarantees protection for those who aren't ready for it for at least a little while.