LOL? I nearly ROFL'd

[Seth]

Boy, they sure have drilled down the 1st commandment, that's hilariously pathetic! What happens after you check off however many of the offenses...does it spit out how many hail Mary's you're supposed to recite?

Nah. It's just a reminder checklist one can use in confession to be sure to get all the sins you might not remember forgiven in one go. You still have to get absolution from a priest in the confessional.

[Seth]

Look at them. They're asking for it. I can't blame the priests when you have these little tempters walking around.

Indeed

Bishop of Tenerife blames child abuse on the children
Dec 27, 2007 - 5:25 PM

Bernando Álvarez said that there are 13 year olds who are wanting to be abused, and 'if you are careless they will provoke you'

There is outrage in parts of Spanish society following declarations made over Christmas from the Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez.

His comments were that there are youngsters who want to be abused, and he compared that abuse to homosexuality, describing them both as prejudicial to society. He said that on occasions the abuse happened because the there are children who consent to it.
‘There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you’, he said.

Are you implying that no 13 year old has ever deliberately attempted to provoke an adult into consensual sexual activity? Are you saying that no 13 year old has ever knowingly and willingly consented to sex with an adult?

Really?

Isn't the whole point of statutory rape laws to impose criminal sanctions on adults for failing to RESIST willing and consensual sexual advances by children?

Isn't adolescent sexual activity between like-age peers rampant these days, with something like 50 percent of girls age 12 and older admitting to giving oral sex to their "boyfriends?"

Isn't the incidence of pregnancy in teenagers proof enough that 13 year olds are in many case perfectly ready, willing and able to engage in sexual acts, including sex with adults?

Isn't that what the Bishop is pointing out, as a warning to others to RESIST the blandishments and sexual provocations of sexualized 13 year olds?

I think so.

What planet do you live on?

[lordpasternack]

On a sidenote - "father" sounds so cold and formal… I wonder if they let you call them "daddy" while they're riding you…

[Seth]

It depends what you and this priest mean by "abuse". Does he mean simple statutory rape/abuse (which could be consensual in the minor's eyes), or is this pure blame the victim shite?

Because I'll be honest, if I were a lapsed Catholic teenager, and the priest(s) were handsome - well I'd probably go into a bit more detail than strictly necessary in the confessional about my sins of the flesh and impure thoughts!

Thanks LP for admitting this. Young girls particularly, who do not have strong father-figures, are prone to fixating on older male authority figures. Novels and movies galore have been written and produced about this very subject, from "Lolita" to "The Crush."

It's simply ignorant to claim that no adolescent is ever sexually attracted to an older father-figure. France's entire history is replete with just such events, and even in Canada, the age of consent is, as I recall, 16, and the number ofcountries where the age of consent is as low as 12 is not small.

Most societies throughout history, up until quite recently, held that when a girl reached menarche, she was fit to be married and starting a family. Although menarche seems to be shifting downwards in age, sometimes beginning at age 10, which is probably a result of environmental hormone exposure, at 15 or 16 a boy was a man and was expected to enter the workforce, and girls in the US were commonly married by the same age, and sometimes younger. Until quite recently, the legal age for marriage in some states was 12. One of the notorious examples is that of rock-and-roll icon Jerry Lee Lewis, who married his first wife Myra at age 13, when he was 23.

This is not to say that sexual activity is appropriate, merely that it is not true that in every case the older partner is the instigator or that the relationship is non-consensual. Law makes such relationships illegal for any number of reasons, but it is not legitimate to say that a 13 year old has never, and can never consent to sexual activity, regardless of the age of his or her partner.

I see the Bishop's statement as one of simple truth: Men in authority, including priests, can be targets for sexualized youth eager for an intimate relationship. It is of course the priest's obligation to fend off such advances and not indulge the desires of the child. That's the position of the church, and any priest who violates that rule is NOT acting in accordance with the tenets of the church, and is therefore NOT representing the church. He is acting outside both church and secular law. In other words, he's a criminal.

It's too much to expect, I suppose, that such nuance would be in evidence, because it's so much easier not to have to wrap ones tiny mind around such concepts, and it's so much easier to simply tar ever person associated with Catholicism with the same broad brush, as opposed to exercising some reason and rational thought, as LP has done.

[Hermit]

Are you implying that no 13 year old has ever deliberately attempted to provoke an adult into consensual sexual activity? Are you saying that no 13 year old has ever knowingly and willingly consented to sex with an adult?

Really?

Isn't the whole point of statutory rape laws to impose criminal sanctions on adults for failing to RESIST willing and consensual sexual advances by children?

Isn't adolescent sexual activity between like-age peers rampant these days, with something like 50 percent of girls age 12 and older admitting to giving oral sex to their "boyfriends?"

Isn't the incidence of pregnancy in teenagers proof enough that 13 year olds are in many case perfectly ready, willing and able to engage in sexual acts, including sex with adults?

Isn't that what the Bishop is pointing out, as a warning to others to RESIST the blandishments and sexual provocations of sexualized 13 year olds?

I think so.

What planet do you live on?

Please don't put words into my mouth. The planet I live on, frowns on this kind of conduct.

As to the bolded part, the bishop's intention is not stated in the article. It could be exactly as you say, and it could be yet another attempt to absolve paedophiles among the catholic priesthood from wrong-doing. Perhaps a transcript of the Bishop's full speech might enlighten us. Perhaps not. Meanwhile, going by previously stated "reasons" that were put forward to "explain" paedophilia among the clerics (e.g. permissiveness of the societies they lived in), I tend not to regard this one as a call to resist. It looks like another clutching at straws to me, the intent being damage control of their battered public image.

[Mac_Guffin]

That's Seth for you, Seraph.

[lordpasternack]

Seth - I personally think that sex is never simply abusive in and of itself - but is made abusive by usual hallmarks of abuse: coercion, threats, violence, etc. By that token, sexual activity with a minor needn't in fact be viewed as abusive, or worth fending off, for any reason more than saving your own skin. With that said - emotionally/psychologically immature persons can be quite touch-and-go (pardon the pun!), and one could potentially fuck them over during some sort of tryst, even with the most innocuous of intentions.

I also, as I've already said repeatedly on this forum, was sexually aware as a child. I had explicit fantasies before puberty. I was suspended from secondary school when I was 12, and taken out of PE for the rest of the year for scrawling on a piece of paper my thoughts about a particular PE teacher - which included wanting to cover him on chocolate ice-cream and lick it off… The worst embarrassment being returning to school after the suspension, and watching said teacher trying to choke down laughter as he passed me by in the corridor…

[Seth]

Are you implying that no 13 year old has ever deliberately attempted to provoke an adult into consensual sexual activity? Are you saying that no 13 year old has ever knowingly and willingly consented to sex with an adult?

Really?

Isn't the whole point of statutory rape laws to impose criminal sanctions on adults for failing to RESIST willing and consensual sexual advances by children?

Isn't adolescent sexual activity between like-age peers rampant these days, with something like 50 percent of girls age 12 and older admitting to giving oral sex to their "boyfriends?"

Isn't the incidence of pregnancy in teenagers proof enough that 13 year olds are in many case perfectly ready, willing and able to engage in sexual acts, including sex with adults?

Isn't that what the Bishop is pointing out, as a warning to others to RESIST the blandishments and sexual provocations of sexualized 13 year olds?

I think so.

What planet do you live on?

Please don't put words into my mouth. The planet I live on, frowns on this kind of conduct.

I direct you to the punctuation mark at the end of each sentence. It's known as a "question mark." It denotes an inquiry, not "putting words" in anyone's anything. It invites response.

As to the bolded part, the bishop's intention is not stated in the article. It could be exactly as you say, and it could be yet another attempt to absolve paedophiles among the catholic priesthood from wrong-doing.

I challenge you to find ANY speech by ANY Catholic authority that "attempts to absolve paedophiles among the catholic priesthood from wrong-doing." The only speeches or statements I've seen on the matter question the veracity of the complainant based on the fact that the vast majority of the complaints made against Catholic priests have been made by adults, generally 30, 40 or even 50 years AFTER THE ALLEGED OFFENSE, and generally as a part of an organized effort to extort money, huge sums thereof, from the church. The profit motive behind such ancient complaints impeaches the credibility and veracity of the complainants, as does the fact that for four or five decades evidently, if such abuse occurred, it wasn't all that important to the alleged victim.

I have little tolerance or sympathy for people who decide not to report a crime when it happens and then complain about not receiving justice when they try to open a complaint long after the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, if true, it's morally reprehensible for the victim of a sex crime, any sex crime, not to report and prosecute such offenses because by not doing so they leave a sex offender on the loose, free to victimize others, when reporting the crime could put an end to the crimes and prevent further victimization.

There's a reason we have "statutes of limitation" on such accusations, and it's because waiting so long to report a crime means that it is impossible for justice to be done, because evidence is gone, witness are dead or unavailable, and in some cases, even the priest against whom the charges are laid are dead. Which, by the way, in Colorado is a criminal offense called "criminal libel."

There is a legal principle called "estopple" that holds that if you sit on your rights, if you fail to exercise them for too long, you may lose the right to do so. That's what statutes of limitations are for, to prevent miscarriages of justice resulting from unproven and unprovable allegations of sexual abuse four or five decades ago.

Perhaps a transcript of the Bishop's full speech might enlighten us. Perhaps not.

True.

Meanwhile, going by previously stated "reasons" that were put forward to "explain" paedophilia among the clerics (e.g. permissiveness of the societies they lived in), I tend not to regard this one as a call to resist. It looks like another clutching at straws to me, the intent being damage control of their battered public image.

Please provide citations to these "previously stated "reasons"" that you are referring to. I've never heard anything of the kind coming from any official Catholic source. Have you? Or is this an ex recto assertion?

[Seth]

That's Seth for you, Seraph.

No, that's Seraph for you. Seraph.

[Seth]

Seth - I personally think that sex is never simply abusive in and of itself - but is made abusive by usual hallmarks of abuse: coercion, threats, violence, etc.

I agree.

By that token, sexual activity with a minor needn't in fact be viewed as abusive, or worth fending off, for any reason more than saving your own skin.

I agree. Any person who is sexually mature is by definition sexually mature and ought to have the right and liberty to express themselves sexually as it pleases them to do so, commensurate of course with acceptance of personal responsibility for the consequences of such actions. France has a very enlightened attitude in this regard, as do some other countries, particularly Scandinavian countries. The US is as uptight and prudish as it gets, except perhaps Islam, which doesn't seem to have a problem with 9 year old's being married to 80 year olds, just a problem with out-of-wedlock sex of any kind.

With that said - emotionally/psychologically immature persons can be quite touch-and-go (pardon the pun!), and one could potentially fuck them over during some sort of tryst, even with the most innocuous of intentions.

Yes, again I agree. And it is that ability to "fuck over" a young person on the part of an older, mature person that is the basis of most statutory rape laws. The problem is that such laws are mostly about the "ick factor" of young/old sex rather than any particularized identification of specific harm. And they completely ignore how badly a same-age peer can "fuck over" an adolescent sex partner, which is actually probably far more of a danger. A mature sex partner is far more likely to actually be concerned about the emotional health of a younger partner than some horny teenager who just wants to get his/her rocks off.

Anybody who's been through high school knows how cruel adolescent sexual politics can be.

I also, as I've already said repeatedly on this forum, was sexually aware as a child. I had explicit fantasies before puberty. I was suspended from secondary school when I was 12, and taken out of PE for the rest of the year for scrawling on a piece of paper my thoughts about a particular PE teacher - which included wanting to cover him on chocolate ice-cream and lick it off… The worst embarrassment being returning to school after the suspension, and watching said teacher trying to choke down laughter as he passed me by in the corridor…

And you're hardly alone. I'm sure a majority, or at least a plurality of your classmates had similar sexual fantasies, but were simply better at concealing them.

The movie "Little Darlings" with Tatum O'Neill and Kristy McNichol, not to mention "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" are classic examples of the concept.

[lordpasternack]

Seth - even "sexual maturity" is arbitrary and potentially unuseful as a gauge for statutory rape laws. I wouldn't grant someone who'd reached puberty precociously the same assumed sexual autonomy and responsibility of an adult, even if I could recognise that they wanted and were not being harmed by any sexual activities they invited, either from peers or older individuals/adults.

I mention that occasion when I was 12, but I'll reiterate: I was sexual before puberty. I messed around with local boys. I did things that would make those of a sensitive disposition's eyes water on hearing that prepubescents could be getting up to such things. I had explicit fantasies at the age of 9 about peers and adult men. Do I need to explain how explicit, or is that enough information for you to be going on?

Oh - and veering somewhat towards the topic - my first little boyfriend came from a nominally Catholic family - and when they found out some of our adventures together, his dad gave him a sound beating with his belt. I got to see the marks on his back once he'd been allowed back out to play a couple of days afterwards. Gotta love such entrenched notions of the dirtiness and sinfulness of sex.

[Hermit]

I direct you to the punctuation mark at the end of each sentence. It's known as a "question mark." It denotes an inquiry, not "putting words" in anyone's anything. It invites response.

I know what to make of the question marks. Clever technique. What planet do you think I live on?

I challenge you to find ANY speech by ANY Catholic authority that "attempts to absolve paedophiles among the catholic priesthood from wrong-doing."

Of course neither the Vatican nor its representatives will say that their speeches, letters and announcements are "attempts to absolve paedophiles among the catholic priesthood from wrong-doing." They just keep "explaining" why so many of their clerics keep getting exposed for sticking their cocks in children's hands, mouths, twats and arses. Surely, you are familiar with "implied" meanings? You've used the word very recently, yes?

[Azathoth]

Just a point on the OP. The age of consent in Spain is 13, the lowest in Europe, so the Bishop is actually talking about kids who it would be legal to screw under spanish law

[cowiz]

Just a point on the OP. The age of consent in Spain is 13, the lowest in Europe, so the Bishop is actually talking about kids who it would be legal to screw under spanish law

Is this true? Can a 13 year old consent to fuck anyone? I've done no research on this so my question is incredulous.

[Seth]

Just a point on the OP. The age of consent in Spain is 13, the lowest in Europe, so the Bishop is actually talking about kids who it would be legal to screw under spanish law

I'm guessing, but I suspect that Spain has a higher age limit for an adult who is in a "position of trust" to have sex with a young person. That's the case in many places and is intended to forestall even the chance that a person in authority, like a teacher, priest, policeman, babysitter will use undue influence of authority to coerce the young person into sex.

I'd be interested to know if this applies in Spain or not.