Incest Question
Colin Cashman
Okay, I have my token annual stupid question (I get one per year, in any
newsgroup of my choosing :), so I'm taking it.
In incest that starts in childhood between a parent and child, is it ever
continued into adulthood? Is so, is it ever seen as something "natural" and
pleasurable between two adults, or is it usually continued more out of fear
and what-not?
--
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even
remotely true."
- Homer J. Simpson
dave.j...@mailexite.com
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:00:12 CST, Colin Cashman wrote:
>Okay, I have my token annual stupid question (I get one per year, in any
>newsgroup of my choosing :), so I'm taking it.
>
>In incest that starts in childhood between a parent and child, is it ever
>continued into adulthood? Is so, is it ever seen as something "natural" and
>pleasurable between two adults, or is it usually continued more out of fear
>and what-not?
I've known at least one case where it did continue, (or more accurately
re-start) voluntarily on the part of the daughter.
--
At Wesnet (dot com), I'm djohnson.and I answer that a lot
faster than mailexcite. Support the Smith ammendment to
end all this rigamarole.
Reka G. Morvay
In article <6b8av8$84p$1...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>,
Colin Cashman <ccas...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>Okay, I have my token annual stupid question (I get one per year, in any
>newsgroup of my choosing :), so I'm taking it.
>
>In incest that starts in childhood between a parent and child, is it ever
>continued into adulthood? Is so, is it ever seen as something "natural" and
>pleasurable between two adults, or is it usually continued more out of fear
>and what-not?
Incest between parent and child is not seen as natural in any society,
human animal or otherwise. Usually, when this type of incest occurs among
humans, the parent was not actively involved in the upbringing of the
child. There seems to be some biological programming against having sexual
relations with someone you grew up with (too close to sibling) or someone
you took care of from baby age (too close to child).
It's been documented that most incest cases occur between step-father and
step-daughter. Occasionally, it happens between natural parent and child,
but almost always, the parent did not take an active role in raising that
child.
I have heard of a couple of cases where the child claimed that his/her
sexual relationship with a parent was consensual. Typically, society's
reaction to incest is so strong, that if the child is young, s/he
automatically accepts that it was wrong. Even for adults who claim it was
consensual, the general reaction is that incest is de facto wrong, and
therefore the adult must have been damaged in some way to think that it
isn't.
In my opinion, whatever happens between two consenting adults is their own
business.
Reka
Bonni Hall
Behold! Colin Cashman (ccas...@cs.uml.edu) did say unto us:
> In incest that starts in childhood between a parent and child, is it ever
> continued into adulthood?
Yes.
> Is so, is it ever seen as something "natural" and
> pleasurable between two adults, or is it usually continued more out of fear
> and what-not?
Generally conditioning. The child so abused is so used to submitting that
they continue to do so. The sexual gratification is there, even in
childhood, but it's so powerful that many (most) children are unable to
cope with it and are forced to resort to all sorts of psychological
dodges to survive the trauma. Children who are abused this way are pretty
much always emotionally and psychologically damaged (and sometimes
physically, depending on the level of the abuse).
No, I'm not a psychologist.
Yes, I am an abuse survivor (although not of sexual abuse this severe,
for which I am grateful).
There are lots of resources on the web and elsewhere which deal with
sexual abuse and its effects. You might check them out. A good place to
start might be:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3059/resources.html
bonni
--
_ __,;;;/ Bonni Hall, also known as Her Grace the Duchess
,;( )_, )~\| http://www.prairienet.org/~bonni/
;; // `--; Canst thou bind the unicorn... ? [Job 39:10 KJV]
' ;\ | ----,--'--{@ (bo...@prairienet.org)
Les Bonser
In article <6bat7u$d6n$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, re...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
(Reka G. Morvay) wrote:
> In article <6b8av8$84p$1...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>,
> Colin Cashman <ccas...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
> >Okay, I have my token annual stupid question (I get one per year, in any
> >newsgroup of my choosing :), so I'm taking it.
> >
> >In incest that starts in childhood between a parent and child, is it ever
> >continued into adulthood? Is so, is it ever seen as something "natural" and
> >pleasurable between two adults, or is it usually continued more out of fear
> >and what-not?
>
> Incest between parent and child is not seen as natural in any society,
> human animal or otherwise.
The phrase "human animal or otherwise" seems (to me, at least) to extend
your statement to the animal community as well human society.
If so, then I beg to differ. There IS a species of chimp that uses sexual
touching as a general basis for interaction. Males fondle each other
instead of fighting, parents calm their young with sexual touching, and
these apes have both hetro- and homosexual encounters.
Les
Todd D. Ellner
In article <6bat7u$d6n$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Reka G. Morvay <re...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In my opinion, whatever happens between two consenting adults is their own
>business.
Only two?
Todd
--
Todd Ellner | The thankful receiver bears a plentiful harvest.
tel...@cs.pdx.edu | --William Blake "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
(503)493-4431 |
Reka G. Morvay
In article <6bbgcs$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Les Bonser <lbo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The phrase "human animal or otherwise" seems (to me, at least) to extend
>your statement to the animal community as well human society.
>
>If so, then I beg to differ. There IS a species of chimp that uses sexual
>touching as a general basis for interaction. Males fondle each other
>instead of fighting, parents calm their young with sexual touching, and
>these apes have both hetro- and homosexual encounters.
Hi Les,
You're absolutely right that such a species of chimps exist; they're
called the bonobo chimps. I should have qualified my statement with a
disclaimer about what's considered "incest." I was using the term mostly
for actual copulation, which may lead to offspring. If you accept that
definition, the rest of my post makes more sense.
Among bonobo chimps, a mother may even serve her son as a mate -- UNTIL
her son reacher puberty, when she starts rejecting him. You may think of
this behavior as "training" for the young chimp, but only so long as
there's no danger of the mother conceiving from this incestuous
relationship.
Among humans, any kind of sexual touching between relatives who are deemed
too close (usually, but not always, parents/children and siblings) is
considered wrong and incestuous. However, even among humans, this varies.
In ancient Egypt, royalty married siblings to keep families "pure." In
other societies, being second cousins is too close for comfort.
Much of what is considered incest among humans is culturally determined,
such as how far relatives need to be before a sexual relationship between
them is considered incestuous. In general, though, there is also a
deep-seated biological aversion to incest which probably stems from the
fact that offspring of incestuous relationships tend to be less healthy,
therefore evolution would have weeded out most tendency to inbreed. Thus
the bonobo chimp mother's refusal to mate with her son after puberty.
Hope this clarifies things.
Reka
Reka G. Morvay
In article <6bbgtd$80a$1...@sirius.cs.pdx.edu>,
Todd D. Ellner <tel...@cs.pdx.edu> wrote:
>In article <6bat7u$d6n$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Reka G. Morvay <re...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>In my opinion, whatever happens between two consenting adults is their own
>>business.
>
>Only two?
Okay, you got me ;)
In my opinion, whatever happens between ANY NUMBER of consenting adults is
their own business.
Better? :)
Reka
Bruce Scobie
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Les Bonser wrote:
>
> The phrase "human animal or otherwise" seems (to me, at least) to extend
> your statement to the animal community as well human society.
>
> If so, then I beg to differ. There IS a species of chimp that uses sexual
> touching as a general basis for interaction. Males fondle each other
> instead of fighting, parents calm their young with sexual touching, and
> these apes have both hetro- and homosexual encounters.
>
> Les
>
This would be the bonobo, or pygmy chimpanzees, of S. Zaire. Known under
the scientific name, Pan paniscus, this ape is indeed sexually unique
among the primate family (aside from humans), but incestous contact is
actually rare (although existant). The most common homosexual encounters
occur between unrelated female; yet, males do engage in homosexual
encounters and sexual meetings between young apes and adult apes are not
uncommon. (for more info, see Bramblett, Claude - Patterns of Primate
Behavior and Jolly, C. - Physical Anthro)
Aahz
In article <6bat7u$d6n$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Reka G. Morvay <re...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>sexual relationship with a parent was consensual. Typically, society's
>reaction to incest is so strong, that if the child is young, s/he
>automatically accepts that it was wrong. Even for adults who claim it
>was consensual, the general reaction is that incest is de facto wrong,
>and therefore the adult must have been damaged in some way to think
>that it isn't.
That, I think, is precisely the point. Societies pathologize incest so
strongly that I've heard of several cases (third- and fourth-hand) where
the child exhibited no signs of damage until *after* the incest was
discovered. I understand that there is more evidence for this WRT child
abuse.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
gfarber: Thank God, or the belief system of your choice.
pddb: Does human perversity count as a belief system?
Ray Cochener
Reka G. Morvay wrote:
>
> In article <6b8av8$84p$1...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>,
> Colin Cashman <ccas...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
> >Okay, I have my token annual stupid question (I get one per year, in any
> >newsgroup of my choosing :), so I'm taking it.
> >
> >In incest that starts in childhood between a parent and child, is it ever
> >continued into adulthood? Is so, is it ever seen as something "natural" and
> >pleasurable between two adults, or is it usually continued more out of fear
> >and what-not?
>
> Incest between parent and child is not seen as natural in any society,
> humans, the parent was not actively involved in the upbringing of the
> child. There seems to be some biological programming against having sexual
> relations with someone you grew up with (too close to sibling) or someone
> you took care of from baby age (too close to child).
>
I have to partially disagree- it does not naturally occur between
*fertile* children and parents- young male chimpansees who are still too
young to be fertile will "practice" on their mothers (and just about any
other inanimate object or female chimp), and the mothers will allow this
until they become older ad potentially fertile.
Renard A. DellaFave
>> In incest that starts in childhood between a parent and child, is it ever
>> continued into adulthood?
generally conditioning? You mean the kid is conditioned into doing
it so much that it seems normal for that reason? Well, that is true
for many normal behaviours too.
>they continue to do so. The sexual gratification is there, even in
>childhood, but it's so powerful that many (most) children are unable to
>cope with it and are forced to resort to all sorts of psychological
>dodges to survive the trauma. Children who are abused this way are pretty
I don't mean to offend, but I just don't understand why it is always
assumed that sex is "damaging" or "traumatic" to children. It's as
if the concept of sex and a child automatically means abuse.
It's not the sexual gratification that damages kids, I mean, I was
masturbating from before 1st grade, not knowing the good feeling had
anything to do with that stuff in "How Babies Are Made", but experiencing
it nonetheless.
If some adult woman had been kindly enough to let me try sex with her
at some early age (probably would have been difficult at grade 1 penis
size, but by 8 or 10 years old) then I don't see that it would have been
necessarily bad, if she were nice about it. I mean anyone can be emotionally
tortured, and it's easier to do it to a kid than an adult, but that's
separate from having sex.
If she'd been willing to let me have a good look at her 'parts' I would
have been thrilled, as the anatomy books really didn't go into enough
detail...heck, playing gynocologist was one of the first, and most exciting,
things I did with my present SO as soon as the romance cooled a degree or
two. Well, no, maybe I didn't wait that long. So, I've always been
curious, and an adult woman would have been a great learning experience.
Again, so long as she was nice to me about it and not abusive or deceptive.
Secrecy would be OK. I realized even as early as 8 that people thought
many things were wrong enough to kill for that I didn't think were wrong
at all.
Sure, there was something cool about waiting till 18, and then having sex
for the first time with the woman I'm still with, but, I can tell ya, waiting
that long wasn't entirely by choice (I mean, I did have my standards,and
had they been met earlier, I would have taken the option).
And, of course, after age 10 or 11 when I hit puberty, a real "hot for teacher"
fulfilment would have been great...ah, my HS dance teacher doing those splits.
<sigh>
So, since I'm not a psychologist, if anyone could clue me in as to
why it's thought that kids can't have sex without it automatically
being abuse, I would honestly love to hear it.
At the moment, to me, it seems like the normal parental-type
exaggerated protective behaviour. I.e., given that not all
adults would be nice/fair/nonabusive to the kid, and it would
have to be secret, the RISK of it going bad is high, therefor
adults in general call it "BAD" and "abuse" in all cases because
they're so scared and worried about their kids...in essence, trying
to reduce the number of abusive encounters by making ANY encounter
stigmatized to the extreme.
By a practica, how-to-protect-kids, understanding, this makes sense,
but it also leads people to believe there's no such thing as OK
sex between kids and adults, and I don't think that's correct....
which is why I'm writing this, in case anyone can cogently argue
why such sex is always abusive or damaging.
Paul Ewing
>Incest between parent and child is not seen as natural in any society,
>human animal or otherwise.
Incest in the Animal Kingdom is not uncommon. There are many species
where this occures. The argument that this does not happen because it
lowers the quallity of the offspring is not entirely accurate. The
mating of close relatives intensifies the desirable genes as wel as
the undesirable. In the animal world the offspring that are unhealthy
usually die before reaching breading age. In humans this does not
happen leading to situations like those experienced by the Egyptian
and European ruling classes where children were protected and later
passed their undesirable traits on to future generations through the
close marrages.
Paul Ewing
Bonni Hall
Behold! Renard A. DellaFave (rade...@unity.ncsu.edu) did say unto us:
> I don't mean to offend, but I just don't understand why it is always
> assumed that sex is "damaging" or "traumatic" to children. It's as
> if the concept of sex and a child automatically means abuse.
Having your father put his penis in you when you're five years old is
traumatic. Sorry to be blunt, but that's just how it is.
Sex is not necessarily damaging, no. What IS damaging is the terrible
abuse of TRUST and POWER which goes on with parental sexual abuse on a
child. It's the violation of self and of boundaries. It's not the sex,
per se.
And I know you do not mean to offend. This is a very delicate subject
with me, partly because I know so many sexual abuse survivors, and partly
because I _AM_ one. I'm sorry if our wounds and our hurts offend you, but
the fact is that when a parent or other authority figure abuses your
trust and tricks you into things you're not ready for, or violates you
without your consent at all, or makes you bear the burden of guilt for
what THEY do (being unable to control their own base desires), it causes
trauma.
As for the kind of sex you talked about, I lost my virginity at the age
of fourteen with a man who was much older than I was. I never considered
it "abuse", I was not traumatized by it, I was a willing participant.
That is a WORLD of difference from being involuntarily fondled by a
babysitter at the age of six.
Rod
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:09:18 CST, pew...@mindspring.com (Paul Ewing)
wrote:
For more information on the effects of inbreeding, with specific
reference to European royalty, I recommend the fascinating book "In
The Blood - God, Genes and Destiny" by Steve Jones (Flamingo Books,
UK).
Rod
Lee
> If some adult woman had been kindly enough to let me try sex with her
> at some early age (probably would have been difficult at grade 1 penis
> size, but by 8 or 10 years old) then I don't see that it would have been
> necessarily bad, if she were nice about it.
If "some adult woman" were your mother, since the subject of this
thread is INCEST, it would be a very different story.
> I mean anyone can be emotionally
> tortured, and it's easier to do it to a kid than an adult, but that's
> separate from having sex.
If it is a related adult commiting the incest, there is NO
separation. The adult has violated a sacred trust of parent and
child.
I can't believe you people would think it's okay.
Reka G. Morvay
In article <6bcs0e$5b7$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
Renard A. DellaFave <rade...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>I don't mean to offend, but I just don't understand why it is always
>assumed that sex is "damaging" or "traumatic" to children. It's as
>if the concept of sex and a child automatically means abuse.
>So, since I'm not a psychologist, if anyone could clue me in as to
>why it's thought that kids can't have sex without it automatically
>being abuse, I would honestly love to hear it.
Basically, I think you just stepped into a whole big can of worms here.
Most psychologists will tell you that sexuality is a normal and healthy
part of a child's development, from an early age. Kids who feel
comfortable about their bodies, and about their sexuality, go on to form
healthy adult relationships. How did these kids acquire their comfort with
themselves? They learned it from their parents. It's been correlated that
kids who received genital touching (NOT abuse) from their parents as
babies had a higher degree of social adjustment than kids whose parents
ingored "everything down there." If you want to read a good book about
this, get the _Handbook of Human Sexuality_ by Benjamin B. Wolman and John
Money, eds. It has a substantial segment on childhood sexuality and
healthy sexual development. (The rest of it is pretty interesting reading
as well...)
>but it also leads people to believe there's no such thing as OK
>sex between kids and adults, and I don't think that's correct....
>which is why I'm writing this, in case anyone can cogently argue
>why such sex is always abusive or damaging.
A lot of this is cultural. There is a huge amount of hysteria about child
abuse nowadays, and in a country where sex is so taboo a subject, what
could be scarier than child sex abuse? In reality, most kids are sexual
beings, and we should learn to distinguish between normal expressions of
sexuality in kids, and abuse. It does a disservice to both healthy kids,
and to victims of genuine abuse, to label all manifestations of childhood
sexuality under the blanket term of abuse. It twists normal kids into
thinking sex is bad, and belittles the experiences of kids who truly have
been abused.
Reka
Lee
ANY adult who engages in sexual contact with a child is a sick
bastard. And anyone who makes excuses for them, or condones such
activity, is too.
I'm not talking about normal CHILDHOOD sexual development. I'm
talking about the subject of this thread -- INCEST -- and there is
No excuse for it anytime, ever. Trying to change the subjec to
childhood sexual development is disingenuous.
Aahz
{WARNING: none of what follows should be construed as implying that I am
in favor of pedophilia.}
In article <34de9636...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>,
Alexandra <net...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:13:55 CST, rade...@unity.ncsu.edu (Renard A.
>DellaFave) wrote:
>>
>>I don't mean to offend, but I just don't understand why it is always
>>assumed that sex is "damaging" or "traumatic" to children. It's as
>>if the concept of sex and a child automatically means abuse.
>
>I'm glad you made the comment of "I don't understand why...." because
>it's obvious that you really do not. (I'm not flaming you. Believe me
>you would know.) The reason an adult goes to a child is so they can
>dominate another person. It's never a good experience for a child. The
>only time I've read otherwise from an adult surviver was because they
>too had become abusers and were trying to justify their actions.
>You later talk about how you kinda wish an older woman had come to you
>when you were young. There's a big difference between an adult fantasy
>and being the unwilling victim of incest.
The problem is that the damage IMO comes mostly from the horrified
reaction, both from the participant(s) and from society at large (which
reinforces the horror of the participant(s)). From a child's point of
view, adults do lots of horrible things to them, so what molds the
child's experience of the event has more to do with the way the adults
perceive than with the child's.
Because of the taboos surrounding both childhood and sex, it is
extremely difficult to have an open discussion about these issues --
someone who is normally quite sensible is almost certain to pop up and
start flailing around when the two are combined (e.g. you and Bonni).
This keeps the vicious cycle going, because you are reinforcing the
horror/guilt/shame felt by any incest survivors reading your words.
It's similar to the way we treat women who are victims of rape: "Oh,
that was a terrible thing that happened to you, but, really, you must
have done *something* wrong or it wouldn't have happened to you." Only
with incest, we reassure the kids so much that nothing is wrong with
them that they start to believe that something *is* wrong -- otherwise
why comment so much?
Bonni Hall
Behold! Aahz (aa...@netcom.com) did say unto us:
> The problem is that the damage IMO comes mostly from the horrified
> reaction, both from the participant(s) and from society at large (which
> reinforces the horror of the participant(s)).
No. Being sexually preyed upon at ANY age is traumatic. I don't give a
flying fuck what society thinks of me, frankly.
> From a child's point of
> view, adults do lots of horrible things to them, so what molds the
> child's experience of the event has more to do with the way the adults
> perceive than with the child's.
Yes, and if you are treated badly, you perceive yourself as worthless or
as an object or in any of a thousand different ways which are unhealthy
and wrong. Bad parenting is detrimental to a developing child, this is
extremely well-documented.
Sexual abuse by a parent is EQUALLY detrimental to a child. This, too, is
extremely well-documented.
> Because of the taboos surrounding both childhood and sex, it is
> extremely difficult to have an open discussion about these issues --
> someone who is normally quite sensible is almost certain to pop up and
> start flailing around when the two are combined (e.g. you and Bonni).
Well, it's very difficult to discuss this with a survivor of childhood
abuse, yes, particularly if you try to tell me that my trauma (which I've
spent a lot of time having to re-experience via flashbacks and through
re-associating emotions to memories) is caused by what society thinks of
me and not by my OWN horror at having been so invaded and mishandled by
people who had no right to handle me that way.
> This keeps the vicious cycle going, because you are reinforcing the
> horror/guilt/shame felt by any incest survivors reading your words.
I don't feel shame. I didn't do anything to be ashamed of.
I don't feel horror, other than to be horrified that adults will use
children so badly.
I don't feel guilt. I did nothing to feel guilty about.
> It's similar to the way we treat women who are victims of rape: "Oh,
> that was a terrible thing that happened to you, but, really, you must
> have done *something* wrong or it wouldn't have happened to you."
As a matter of fact, I've been raped, too.
I don't feel shame, I don't feel guilt, although I am still somewhat
horrified at the level of violence and diabolical intent which I saw in a
man who I once loved and trusted.
> Only
> with incest, we reassure the kids so much that nothing is wrong with
> them that they start to believe that something *is* wrong -- otherwise
> why comment so much?
I don't think you've had much contact with sexual abuse victims, have
you? YES, there are counselors and others who probably mishandle children
who have been victims of this kind of abuse. There are also judges who
hand custody over to parents who have beaten or starved children. There
are also parents who beat and starve their children.
Yes, people overreact to issues of child sexual abuse. They also
underreact to it. They also just don't care. They have all kinds of
reactions to it.
I, however, _was_ damaged early in my life by people who should have known
better than to touch me that way, people who should have offered me some
safety, people who should have given me permission to tell, to talk about
what was happening to me. I have been victimized. Nothing you say, no
amount of "reasoning", no arguments to the contrary will persuade me that
I was abused, and that it was not my fault, and that _I_ have nothing to
be ashamed of. It has taken a VERY long time for me to heal from the
circumstances which were my childhood, circumstances which were very much
beyond my control and which caused a tremendous amount of damage to my
perceptions of myself, the world, life, and other human beings.
Also, nothing will persuade me that it's NOT okay for me to stand up for
other victims of childhood sexual abuse, of incest, and say "They were
victimized, too."
I don't know where you get your information on this matter, and as a
matter of fact, I've read your posts for a long time and I know something
about you as a person. I normally don't find much that is particularly
offensive or objectionable in anything you write, frankly, although I
don't always agree with you :-)
I'm not flaming you, I want to make that clear. I understand that you're
making a point about the near-hysteria some people have about the whole
issue of child sexual abuse, and I have to tell you, I agree with your
perception that some people totally overreact.
However, it is NOT okay for an authority figure to trick, force, or
otherwise coerce a child into having sex with them. It does DAMAGE. So
does adult rape, so does any violation of self and of boundaries and of
privacy to that extent. People who are mugged often develop Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, so do rape victims. Why do you think that a
victim of child sexual abuse wouldn't? Or that society is just MAKING
them think they were traumatized when they weren't?
Doesn't matter. I'm mostly asking rhetorical questions now, and I'm not
going to argue any more (if, indeed, we were arguing at all). I think I
see your side, and to a point, I agree. However, I'm never going to say
that it's "society" making victims of abuse think they were traumatized
when they were actually peachy keen and fine and dandy, and it didn't
matter that step-daddy made you do things you didn't think you could even
SAY no to....
bonni (survivor, not victim)
Bonni Hall
Typos being fixed, be patient with me:
Behold! Bonni Hall (bo...@prairienet.org) did say unto us:
> No
> amount of "reasoning", no arguments to the contrary will persuade me that
> I was not abused, and that it was my fault, and that _I_ have
> anything to be ashamed of.
That's more what I intended to say. I wrote it kind of strangely, and
wanted to clarify. I'm a little distracted today (I'm actually at w*rk,
and no, they don't care if I access Usenet from here), so please forgive
me if I was unclear.
bonni the distracted
Reka G. Morvay
In article <34DB1E11...@banet.net>, Lee <gen...@banet.net> wrote:
>ANY adult who engages in sexual contact with a child is a sick
>bastard. And anyone who makes excuses for them, or condones such
>activity, is too.
>I'm not talking about normal CHILDHOOD sexual development. I'm
>talking about the subject of this thread -- INCEST -- and there is
>No excuse for it anytime, ever. Trying to change the subjec to
>childhood sexual development is disingenuous.
Look, I understand that you're upset by the idea of incest. However,
the previous poster asked a question about sexual contact between
adults and children, not necessarily incest. Yes, the topic of the
thread is incest, however, threads change. If it really bothers you,
change the topic.
As to sexual contact between adults and children, please define to me
what is okay and what is not. Clearly, (hopefully), washing a baby's
genitals is an okay activity for a parent. What if a little baby boy
gets an erection? Should the parent now stop washing the child because
it may have sexual connotations?
Or how about this? What if a parent notices that rubbing a baby's
genitals calms their fussing? That's shakier ground, but consider
that this was an accepted practice in Europe until very recently.
And the entire population of Europe for centuries was not under
the impression that they'd been sexually abused.
My only point is that definitions blur, depending on the time, place
and culture of your environment. What's not okay in this culture may
have been okay in the past, and in fact, may still be okay in other
cultures. This is not a blanket approval for anything and everything
that may have happened. However, look at the people in those other
cultures/ages and draw your own conclusion whether they were
damaged.
Reka
Bruce Scobie
Incest does not just include child-parent sexual contact, it also includes
brother-sister, aunt-nephew, and in most states, 1st cousins. I would
really put sexual contact under another category, that being child abuse.
I don't think any child should ever be subjected to the trauma of sexual
molestation. However, incest as it is defined by the state is a different
story. Despite our moral abhorance(sp?), I think that consenting adults
should have free choice to have sexual relationships with any other
consenting adult. While I question the psychological status of a man who
sleeps with his mother, I really don't have a moral objection to it. And
with siblings or cousin, the same holds true - although I think that with
cousins, there really isn't any mental status implications (perhaps even
with siblings, although, ehhh....)
bs
Ray Cochener
Alexandra wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:13:55 CST, rade...@unity.ncsu.edu (Renard A.
> DellaFave) wrote:
> >
> >I don't mean to offend, but I just don't understand why it is always
> >assumed that sex is "damaging" or "traumatic" to children. It's as
> >if the concept of sex and a child automatically means abuse.
> >
>
> I'm glad you made the comment of "I don't understand why...." because
> it's obvious that you really do not. (I'm not flaming you. Believe me
> you would know.) The reason an adult goes to a child is so they can
> dominate another person. It's never a good experience for a child. The
> only time I've read otherwise from an adult surviver was because they
> too had become abusers and were trying to justify their actions.
> You later talk about how you kinda wish an older woman had come to you
> when you were young. There's a big difference between an adult fantasy
> and being the unwilling victim of incest.
> incest. You'll find just how damaging it is, and how the cycles must
> be broken.
>
Double points here- he probably had these fantasies when he was that
age- it is not uncommon- however, the gap between fantasy and reality is
in the motivation of the adult to say yes. The idea that there are
adults out there who are going to expose themselves to litigation and
public humiliation because they simply don't believe children should be
denied access to their own personal sex organs is ludicrous- shure it's
what the kid wants, but any adult who is going to be entering into a
sexual relationship with a child has other ideas- and those ideas are
generally abusive towards the child.
Elocutu...@hotmail.com
In article <34DB1E11...@banet.net>,
Lee <gen...@banet.net> wrote:
>
> ANY adult who engages in sexual contact with a child is a sick
> bastard. And anyone who makes excuses for them, or condones such
> activity, is too.
Name-calling and trying to scare people off of the subject by equating them
with the subject they are discussing is dirty, verbal infighting. It
contributes nothing to the debate and opens you up to a few righteous flames.
I happen to agree that adults who have sex with children, particularly their
own children need help, but that doesn't excuse this sort of attack.
Respectfully
--Elocutus
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Lee
Aahz wrote:
>
> {WARNING: none of what follows should be construed as implying that I am
> in favor of pedophilia.}
But incest is okay? or did you mean to include that? They aren't the
same thing, believe it or not.
> The problem is that the damage IMO comes mostly from the horrified
> reaction, both from the participant(s) and from society at large (which
> reinforces the horror of the participant(s)). From a child's point of
In incest, there is damned good reason for the horrified reaction,
but unless you have been a victim or are close to someone who was, I
suppose it could be a mystery to you.
> Because of the taboos surrounding both childhood and sex, it is
> extremely difficult to have an open discussion about these issues --
Taboos are usually there for a reason, and aren't necessarily bad
things. Often, they protect the innocent from predators.
> have done *something* wrong or it wouldn't have happened to you." Only
> with incest, we reassure the kids so much that nothing is wrong with
> them that they start to believe that something *is* wrong -- otherwise
> why comment so much?
Considering that most of the time no one ever knows what has
happened to the child, this really isn't the case. An incest victim
typically feels guilt or shame, and hopes no one ever finds out.
Lee
> Name-calling and trying to scare people off of the subject by equating them
> with the subject they are discussing is dirty, verbal infighting. It
> contributes nothing to the debate and opens you up to a few righteous flames.
You can be offended if you want (your choice, not my problem), but I
stand by what I said about those who molest their children.
> I happen to agree that adults who have sex with children, particularly their
> own children need help, but that doesn't excuse this sort of attack.
Attack on who? Child molesters? Oh, gee, I really have a lot of
sympathy, I'm so ashamed to have spoken of those models of citizenry
that way.
Flame away, it doesn't matter. Adults commiting incest on children
are still sick bastards.
Lee
Martin Schroeder
In <Pine.OSF.3.96.980206...@curly.cc.utexas.edu> Bruce Scobie <br...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
>Incest does not just include child-parent sexual contact, it also includes
>brother-sister, aunt-nephew, and in most states, 1st cousins. I would
Incest: child-parent
Inbreeding: brother-sister etc.
Martin
--
Martin Schr"oder, M...@Dream.HB.North.DE
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)nfluence with large hammer (David Hendrix)
Reka G. Morvay
In article <N+520Ai...@dream.hb.north.de>,
Martin Schroeder <m...@dream.hb.north.de> wrote:
>
>Incest: child-parent
>Inbreeding: brother-sister etc.
incest (noun)
1. Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related
that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
2. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near
relative.
inbreeding (noun)
1. The breeding of related individuals within an isolated or a
closed group of organisms or people.
2. The continued breeding of closely related individuals so as
to preserve desirable traits in a stock.
breed (verb)
1. To produce (offspring); give birth to or hatch.
So no, your definition is not correct. Inbreeding refers to the
begetting of offspring by an incestuous act. It has nothing to
do with the closeness (or exact relation) of the relatives.
Reka
Colin Cashman
In article <34DBA64B...@banet.net> Lee <gen...@banet.net> writes:
>
>Flame away, it doesn't matter. Adults commiting incest on children
>are still sick bastards.
Let's change the question slightly (or, rather, slightly change what the
question has become).
I think we'd all agree, regardless of background or personal experience, that
incest - true incest, not just adult-child sexual relations (as some have
apparently confused with incest) - is reprehensible. But what about fantasies?
Traditionally, every psychologist has stated that fantasies are perfectly
healthy. Does that go for incestuous fantasies as well?
Colin
Lee
Colin Cashman wrote:
> apparently confused with incest) - is reprehensible. But what about fantasies?
> Traditionally, every psychologist has stated that fantasies are perfectly
> healthy. Does that go for incestuous fantasies as well?
Fantasies in general, yes. Fantasies are a wish, which can all too
easily tempt one to make them reality. And with child sexual abuse,
I can see no possible "good."
BenH57
Actually, according to Miriam-Webster, Bruce is correct.
in*cest (noun)
[Middle English, from Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure,
from in- + castus pure -- more at CASTE]
First appeared 13th Century
: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are
forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship
>>>>
In <Pine.OSF.3.96.980206...@curly.cc.utexas.edu> Bruce Scobie
<br...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
>Incest does not just include child-parent sexual contact, it also includes
>brother-sister, aunt-nephew, and in most states, 1st cousins. I would
Incest: child-parent
Inbreeding: brother-sister etc.
Martin
<<<<
--
bhi...@san.rr.com
http://members.tripod.com/~tunnels/
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <6bbgcs$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> lbo...@worldnet.att.net (Les Bonser) writes:
[...]
>There IS a species of chimp that uses sexual
>touching as a general basis for interaction. Males fondle each other
>instead of fighting, parents calm their young with sexual touching, and
>these apes have both hetro- and homosexual encounters.
You are most likely thinking of the badobo (spelling) or pigmy chimp.
Anouther interesting fact is that thay are matrirackal.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.
Support NoCeM http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>ANY adult who engages in sexual contact with a child is a sick
>bastard. And anyone who makes excuses for them, or condones such
>activity, is too.
The poster in question was not makeing excuses nor was shi[1] condoning
such behavour. Shi was OTOH disscussing the subject in a carm and
resonalble fashion. It would be a benift that we all follow this path.
>I'm not talking about normal CHILDHOOD sexual development. I'm
>talking about the subject of this thread -- INCEST
The subject of a thread always drifts often the "Subject:" will be very
diffrent to the subject. This digresstion into the topic of childhood
sexual devlopment aided in giving a context to the other posts and IMHO
was helpfull.
> -- and there is No excuse for it anytime, ever.
Well apart from the soap opra not knowing situations, I would ask what is
your option of brother sister incest where both pertispence are adults?
>Trying to change the subjec to
>childhood sexual development is disingenuous.
The topic had changed 'naturaly'.
[1] Sorry I can't work out what gender Reka is.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>In <Pine.OSF.3.96.980206...@curly.cc.utexas.edu> Bruce Scobie <br...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
>>Incest does not just include child-parent sexual contact, it also includes
>>brother-sister, aunt-nephew, and in most states, 1st cousins. I would
>Incest: child-parent
>Inbreeding: brother-sister etc.
I'm sorry to make use of a dictionary argument however,
incest n. sexual intercourse between two persons commonly regarded as too
closely to marry (Collins English Dictionary Aust. Ed.)
GwenSpanks
In article <6bghtp$a6p$1...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>, ccas...@cs.uml.edu (Colin
Cashman) writes:
>I think we'd all agree, regardless of background or personal experience,
>that
incest - true incest, not just adult-child sexual relations (as some
>have
apparently confused with incest) - is reprehensible.
but incest can involve consenual adults (ie. adult uncle and niece or even a
brother and sister) and that doesn't seem to me to be reprehensible. it might
not be something i would do or even something i find at all appealing -- the
way i would feel for example about eyebrow piercing -- but what diff does it
make to me what other adults do?
Aahz
In article <886843574.968791@cabal>,
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>
>[1] Sorry I can't work out what gender Reka is.
Which is probably the way zie wants it. ;-) BTW, I understand that you
have particular problems with spelling, but you might try using one of
the standard gender-neutral pronouns (e.g. "zie/zir") rather than making
up a brand-new one ("shi").
Colin Cashman
In article <19980207115...@ladder02.news.aol.com> gwens...@aol.com (GwenSpanks) writes:
>
>but incest can involve consenual adults (ie. adult uncle and niece or even a
>brother and sister) and that doesn't seem to me to be reprehensible. it might
>not be something i would do or even something i find at all appealing -- the
>way i would feel for example about eyebrow piercing -- but what diff does it
>make to me what other adults do?
Oops.
Let me amend my question. Child-adult incest is reprehensible, but adult-
adult incest (which is something I don't find too appealing, myself) is
something that can be left to the involved parties to decide on. But what
about incestous fantasies, were the fantasizing person is a teen or adult?
Jon Purvis
In article <6bcs0e$5b7$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
Renard A. DellaFave <rade...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>
>So, since I'm not a psychologist, if anyone could clue me in as to
>why it's thought that kids can't have sex without it automatically
>being abuse, I would honestly love to hear it.
And while they're at this explaining, clue me in on why in America the
age of consent is 18, in other places it's 16, and I hear that in the
Netherlands girls of 12-14 can consent. Who's to say which of us is
right. I'd certainly think that if the Dutch girls can handle it the we
Americans could too.
--
jrpu...@netcom.com Jon Purvis jon.p...@tpwd.state.tx.us
A wildlife biologist trapped in a programmer's cubicle.
Wise man say "Life too short to drink cheap beer."
Mary Anne Mohanraj
>assumed that sex is "damaging" or "traumatic" to children. It's as
>if the concept of sex and a child automatically means abuse.
As I understand it, a lot of the justification for the idea that
adult/child sexuality is automatically unethical comes from the
inherent power imbalance, as well as the idea that children, by
virtue of their age, are necessarily lacking in the knowledge and
maturity necessary to give informed consent.
To address the latter point first, while you may argue that certain
children may in fact be mature enough to give informed consent (I had
a friend who insisted that the sex he participated in with adults
while he was age twelve was fully consensual and in no way damaging),
the problem lies in how the adult is supposed to *tell* whether a
given child, claiming maturity, is in fact mature. I know I thought I
was pretty mature a whole lot earlier than I actually was. Since the
risk is so high if the child is in fact not mature enough to handle
it, and since it becomes so much of a judgement call on the adult in
question's part if they try to assess that maturity, American society
has decreed that there needs to be a standard age at which we declare
that a child is mature enough to know its own mind regarding
sexuality. That age varies from state to state, generally being
somewhere between 16 and 18. I think that's erring on the high
side...but we're being cautious here, right? And the potential risk
to those children who aren't ready for sex seems to me to weight much
heavier on the scale than the potential frustration to those mature
children who have to wait.
The other point addresses the necessary imbalance in power between an
adult and a child. Children are trained to see adults as figures of
authority -- to trust and obey them, sometimes unquestioningly.
That's necessary, precisely because of the earlier point -- sometimes
a child won't have the knowledge/maturity to handle a situation (fire
in a crowded theatre, eg.) and needs to be able to trust absolutely to
the attached adult's ability to handle the situation and direct the
child. But given that authority, that discrepancy in power, it
becomes extremely difficult for even the most cautious and caring
adult to truly lower that barrier, to really give up all power so that
the child is not coerced into sexual activity. No matter how many
times the adult in question asks, "Are you sure you want to do this?",
the child may still be feeling pressured to say "Yes", even if they're
not sure.
Again, America handles this issue by simply placing age of
consent high enough that there isn't likely to be as much of a power
imbalance between partners. Other countries handle this issue
differently, and I much prefer Victoria's (Australian state's)
system, which has a sliding scale for legality of sexual activity,
wherein the difference in age between partners is more crucial than
the absolute age of participants. For example, two ten-yr-olds can
have sex together legally, but a ten-yr-old and a thirteen-year-old
could not. The permitted gap grows wider as the children grow older,
as there is presumed to be less risk of power abuse as the child
matures.
Finally, in an incest situation, the risk of power abuse is greatly
magnified, as the child is especially conditioned to trust the adult
relative. It must be difficult to the point of impossibility for an
adult to truly assess that a child is mature enough to want sex and
that the child is not being unduly influenced by the trained response
to obey and trust the adult. Given the situation, I find it
difficult imagining a situation where an ethical adult could weigh
the tremendous risk on one hand (despite all precautions and care),
and the potential pleasure on the other hand, and not decide, at the
very least, that it would be better to wait until both parties were
adults.
I do sympathize with the plight of those adult who find themselves
only sexually attracted to children -- that must be a terrible
situation to be in, but I do feel that the demands of ethics are
clear, despite the frustrated inclinations of desire.
- Mary Anne
P.S. -- As mentioned earlier in the thread, all of these effects are
of course greatly magnified by society's shocked reaction, and if we
lived in a more sexually accepting society we could probably minimize
damage to the child -- but the fact remains that that is not the
society we live in, nor is it likely to be in the near future, and
that even if it were, the ethical issues of maturity and power
imbalance would remain.
--
"Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm.
Charm ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and
down are forever." - The Laws of Physics
http://www.iam.com/maryanne/
Ray Cochener
Martin Schroeder wrote:
>
> In <Pine.OSF.3.96.980206...@curly.cc.utexas.edu> Bruce Scobie <br...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
> >Incest does not just include child-parent sexual contact, it also includes
> >brother-sister, aunt-nephew, and in most states, 1st cousins. I would
>
> Incest: child-parent
> Inbreeding: brother-sister etc.
>
not part of either definition.
Ray Cochener
Colin Cashman wrote:
>
> In article <34DBA64B...@banet.net> Lee <gen...@banet.net> writes:
> >
> >Flame away, it doesn't matter. Adults commiting incest on children
> >are still sick bastards.
>
> Let's change the question slightly (or, rather, slightly change what the
> question has become).
>
> incest - true incest, not just adult-child sexual relations (as some have
> Traditionally, every psychologist has stated that fantasies are perfectly
> healthy. Does that go for incestuous fantasies as well?
>
produces offspring or b) involves a minor?
Ray Cochener
> >why it's thought that kids can't have sex without it automatically
> >being abuse, I would honestly love to hear it.
>
> And while they're at this explaining, clue me in on why in America the
> age of consent is 18, in other places it's 16, and I hear that in the
> Netherlands girls of 12-14 can consent. Who's to say which of us is
> right. I'd certainly think that if the Dutch girls can handle it the we
> Americans could too.
>
well, but I doubt an American politician could handle the result of
trying to lower the age.
The numbers are arbitrary- the American model basically says "everyone
past this age should be able to concent" while the Dutch is "there are
women/girls past this age with the maturity to concent"- it's whether to
prosecute the innocent or protect the innocent: either prosecute some
who could consent, or leave some who cannot "to the wolves" and America
has pretty much abandoned it's philosophy of freedom in favor of being
over-protective.
Anon 747 b
Jrpurvis wrote:
>And while they're at this explaining, clue me in on why in America
>the age of consent is 18, in other places it's 16, and I hear that in the
>Netherlands girls of 12-14 can consent. Who's to say which of us is
>right. I'd certainly think that if the Dutch girls can handle it the we
>Americans could too.
I've stayed out of this thread because Adult/Child sex is a hot button for me
(one which I can rarely avoid getting upset about). However, this line had to
make me laugh.
Some societies still practice legal slavery. Some sell children into slavery.
So, should we be doing that too? You're assuming that everyone agrees the
lower age of consent in the Netherlands is a good thing (I don't).
Adults who have sex with children IMO have serious problems. Let them grow up
without this kind of shit. I can think of no situation where I would find
sex between an adult and a 12-year old acceptable (related or not related),
regardless of laws or accepted practices.
Anne
To reply by mail - remove the b in the address
Anon...@aol.com has been set to accept NO mail
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne's Erotic Story Archive
http://members.aol.com/Anon747/index.html
hillary gorman
On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:59:08 CST,<gen...@banet.net> wrote:
*
*In incest, there is damned good reason for the horrified reaction,
*but unless you have been a victim or are close to someone who was, I
*suppose it could be a mystery to you.
[snip]
*Considering that most of the time no one ever knows what has
*happened to the child, this really isn't the case. An incest victim
*typically feels guilt or shame, and hopes no one ever finds out.
[please note that as per the X-hillary: header, I'm remailing/reposting
this for someone else who doesn't want to use thon own account for it, for
fear of being identified]
--begin post--
Hi. I take issue with your claims. I have been in an incestuous
relationship, and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I
discovered my brother's sexual side when I was 25, and we've since moved
several times, gotten ourselves surgically neutered, changed our names,
and married. (note - I'm now 47.) My incestuous relationship with my
brother has brought us both joy. Our family, and our true friends, are
very supportive. We didn't move and change our names to escape from them -
only to escape from our enemies. We didn't hurt anyone, and we don't feel
guilt or shame - we only fear again having to fear hateful attacks from
those of our neighbors who feel that we've sinned, and aren't afraid to
hate us for it. Incest does not, by definition, involve children. Incist
is defined as sexual activity between individuals so closely related that
marriage is prohibited. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing.
We're not having kids, we believe in zero population growth. So whose
business is it if we love each other enough that we want to enjoy
each other as much as possible?
--end post--
Again, I'd like to make it clear that this is not being posted by Hillary
Gorman as her own statement. I am posting this at the request of a party
who chooses to remain totally anonymous, who contacted me and requested
that I post this. I am able to accept replies for this party, and to
forward them.
h.
--
hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
hil...@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet
Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock.
Elocutu...@hotmail.com
> > I happen to agree that adults who have sex with children, particularly
their
> > own children need help, but that doesn't excuse this sort of attack.
>
> Attack on who? Child molesters? Oh, gee, I really have a lot of
> sympathy, I'm so ashamed to have spoken of those models of citizenry
> that way.
Your attack was not just on child molestors but on anyone who would dare to
disagree with you on this topic. If you don't understand why you're way out
of line here, it is beyond the scope of this discussion to explain.
Suzy Charnas
In article <19980207211...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
anon...@aol.com (Anon 747 b) wrote:
>I can think of no situation where I would find
> sex between an adult and a 12-year old acceptable (related or not related),
> regardless of laws or accepted practices.
I agree. I think the problem is that an adult is required to be protective of
a child (for the future of the species, that is) because of the human evolu-
tionary strategy of having children children which come into the world
basically helpless and require a number of years to mature into viable adults
capable of managing for themselves. Society has recognized this need in the
idea that a child should trust adults to look after it until it can look
after itself, and children do indeed need to be able to trust at least one
significant adult, according to all the studies I've seen, to be able to
function without serious mental and emotional crippling as adults.
An adult who practices sex upon a child is betraying that necessary trust by
exploiting that child instead of being protective, nurturing, or at the very
least neutral toward it, and the result is one degree or another of
lasting damage. I just had a startling and horrifying conversation with
an old
friend whom I had not seen in some time who tells me that last summer she
went from being a capable, articulate, and humorous businesswoman to a
shattered wreck given to suicidal thoughts, bouts of self-mutilation, and
what seem to be actual episodes of multiple personality disorder -- because
she found herself unable to avoid facing the incest in her childhood, which
occurred when she was barely out of infancy.
IMO People who say incest can be harm-free are kidding themselves, out of
what I think are very suspect motives.
SMC
Aahz
In article <19980207211...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Anon 747 b <anon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Some societies still practice legal slavery. Some sell children into
>slavery. So, should we be doing that too? You're assuming that
>everyone agrees the lower age of consent in the Netherlands is a good
>thing (I don't).
>
>Adults who have sex with children IMO have serious problems. Let them
>would find sex between an adult and a 12-year old acceptable (related
>or not related), regardless of laws or accepted practices.
The problem lies in making a distinction between a potentially harmful
practice and a harmful practice.
So, the question is, do you think you should have the right to control
whether other adults have sex with 12-year olds? How about a 12-year
old and a 15-year old?
Aahz
In article <suzych.-0702...@ip154.dial-up.highfiber.com>,
Suzy Charnas <suzych.@highfiber.com> wrote:
>
>IMO People who say incest can be harm-free are kidding themselves, out of
>what I think are very suspect motives.
IMO People who say homosexuality can be harm-free are kidding
themselves, out of what I think are very suspect motives.
I find it absolutely amazing the number of people who lose all sense of
proportion when the chiiiiildren [*] are involved.
[*] An alt.peeves trademark
Charlene
Anon 747 b wrote:
>without this kind of shit. I can think of no situation where I would find
>sex between an adult and a 12-year old acceptable (related or not related),
>regardless of laws or accepted practices.
i'd agree with you, except that i know people who had sexual relationships
at that age with adults who claim now as adults that the relationship, far
from being harmless, was actually one of the most positive things in their
lives so far. and i'm not talking about impoverished lives, either.
so idunno.
--
chlo'jo'lo' cjl...@fas.harvard.edu +
"if we really want to be free, women must realize that at the end of
that struggle, we will not be women anymore." -- Pat Califia
+ +
Lee
Hillary: Please...if you're going to post this to the group, don't
send a copy to me email. I replied to that, only to find it was also
here. Just adds more work. We can have the discussion in one arena,
I think.
hillary gorman wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:59:08 CST,<gen...@banet.net> wrote:
> *
> *In incest, there is damned good reason for the horrified reaction,
> *but unless you have been a victim or are close to someone who was, I
> *suppose it could be a mystery to you.
> [snip]
> *Considering that most of the time no one ever knows what has
> *happened to the child, this really isn't the case. An incest victim
> *typically feels guilt or shame, and hopes no one ever finds out.
>
> [please note that as per the X-hillary: header, I'm remailing/reposting
> this for someone else who doesn't want to use thon own account for it, for
> fear of being identified]
>
> --begin post--
> Hi. I take issue with your claims. I have been in an incestuous
> relationship, and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I
> discovered my brother's sexual side when I was 25, and we've since moved
Fine.
My experience is that of being raped by my mother at the age of 8.
It was a betrayal of trust of the worst kind, and nothing good has
ever come of it, only a lot of bad. It kept me pretty screwed up for
a number of years, and a lot of therapy to finally confront her over
it.
I have no experience with brother-sister relationships, and in that
way you are correct, I don't know what I'm talking about ON THAT
TOPIC. You were, however, adults. I was specifically speaking of
incest involving children and adults, and should have been clearer
on that.
Thanks for your note.
Lee
Lee
> Well apart from the soap opra not knowing situations, I would ask what is
> your option of brother sister incest where both pertispence are adults?
What are you referring to with "soap opra?"
I cannot really comment on ADULT sibling relationships. Although it
is typically prohibited by law, and it seems "unnatural" to me
probably because of social conditioning, another side of me says
that if no children are ever produced of the union, "it ain't
nobody's bidness but they own."
My earlier comments had to do with parent-child incest.
Lee
Lee
> have particular problems with spelling, but you might try using one of
> the standard gender-neutral pronouns (e.g. "zie/zir") rather than making
> up a brand-new one ("shi").
Since when have zie/zir been "standard" gender-neutral pronouns? I'm
not arguing, I'm really interested, as I've not heard of them before
and I could use some gender-neutral pronouns in my writings!
Lee
Lee
> I find it absolutely amazing the number of people who lose all sense of
> proportion when the chiiiiildren [*] are involved.
As someone who had experienced the harm personally, and known others
who have, I can say that you apparently have no idea what an
appropriate perspective might be. No, that's not meant as a flame, but
simply that you don't seem to have had close contact with a child
sexually abused by a parent.
I was also married to a school administrator who was responsible for
having to file 51-A's (a report of suspected child abuse) on students
in grades K-5. There are strict criteria to meet before filing, but
almost every one she has filed in the last few decades had turned out
to be a true case. The stories are sickening, trust me.
Anon 747 b
Aahz wrote:
>So, the question is, do you think you should have the right to control
>whether other adults have sex with 12-year olds? How about a
>12-year old and a 15-year old?
First, I made no claim to what should be done, or how it should be enforced. I
simply gave my opinion that adults shouldn't fuck children. (Given in response
to someone stating age of consent might be 12 in the Netherlands). If you want
to pick an age - lets stick with 18. You think it's 'right' that a 35 year old
should fuck a 15-year old? (an example) Why not a 9-year old?
Hey, you have the right to your opinion, I have the right to mine. Sorry, but
there isn't anything you can say that will change my mind.
Anon 747 b
Charlene wrote:
>i'd agree with you, except that i know people who had sexual
>relationships at that age with adults who claim now as adults that the
>relationship, far from being harmless, was actually one of the most
>positive things in their lives so far. and i'm not talking about
>impoverished lives, either.
And I can quote people who say it was the most horrible thing in their
lives.... who 20 years later still have problems with relationships because of
trust destroyed.
So, is it open season on kids, and hope they grow up with positive memories of
it?
Aahz
In article <34DD2169...@banet.net>, Lee <gen...@banet.net> wrote:
"zie/zir" has been in use for about four years on the Net; "sie/hir" has
an even longer lineage. For more info, check out the GNP FAQ at
http://www.lumina.net/OLD/gfp/
BTW, please remember to attribute quotes; I added mine back it at the
top.
Aahz
In article <34DD39BB...@tiac.net>, Lee <gen...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Aahz:
>>
>> I find it absolutely amazing the number of people who lose all sense of
>> proportion when the chiiiiildren [*] are involved.
>
>As someone who had experienced the harm personally, and known others
>who have, I can say that you apparently have no idea what an
>appropriate perspective might be. No, that's not meant as a flame, but
>simply that you don't seem to have had close contact with a child
>sexually abused by a parent.
I've had a few. I've also known a much smaller number of people who've
had sexual contact with a parent that so far as I could see was *not*
abuse. Every single case of sexual abuse that I'm aware of was
accompanied by other forms of child abuse.
This implies quite strongly that it is *child abuse* that is the
problem, not sexual abuse per se. We then take society's general taboos
about sex and elevate the level of horror about child abuse to new
levels because *SEX* is involved.
I think that this is wrong and damaging to children. I think that our
attitudes about sexual abuse prevents us from properly educating even
those children who are not abused about appropriate ways of dealing with
sexual issues.
(As another reminder, please attribute the quotes you use.)
Aahz
In article <19980208055...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>>
>>So, the question is, do you think you should have the right to control
>>whether other adults have sex with 12-year olds? How about a
>>12-year old and a 15-year old?
>
>First, I made no claim to what should be done, or how it should
>be enforced. I simply gave my opinion that adults shouldn't fuck
>children.
There are opinions and there are opinions. We're not talking about
whether you like chocolate cake, here. And so the question arises about
whether you think it is by definition a crime (as in, reason to
prosecute someone and throw zir in jail) for a person of one age (or
higher) to fuck a person of another age (or lower).
Or are you just talking?
Aahz
In article <6bfevr$mqt$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Bonni Hall <bo...@prairienet.org> wrote:
>Behold! Aahz (aa...@netcom.com) did say unto us:
>>
>> The problem is that the damage IMO comes mostly from the horrified
>> reaction, both from the participant(s) and from society at large (which
>> reinforces the horror of the participant(s)).
>
>No. Being sexually preyed upon at ANY age is traumatic.
No argument there. The question is whether one can define a set of
circumstances under which sex is *by definition* "preying upon".
>> From a child's point of
>> view, adults do lots of horrible things to them, so what molds the
>> child's experience of the event has more to do with the way the adults
>> perceive than with the child's.
>
>Yes, and if you are treated badly, you perceive yourself as worthless or
>as an object or in any of a thousand different ways which are unhealthy
>and wrong. Bad parenting is detrimental to a developing child, this is
>extremely well-documented.
>
>Sexual abuse by a parent is EQUALLY detrimental to a child. This, too, is
>extremely well-documented.
Again, no argument. But is all sex with children *by definition* sexual
abuse? What boundaries do we set if it is; what definition of "child"
and "adult"?
>> Because of the taboos surrounding both childhood and sex, it is
>> extremely difficult to have an open discussion about these issues --
>> someone who is normally quite sensible is almost certain to pop up and
>> start flailing around when the two are combined (e.g. you and Bonni).
>
>Well, it's very difficult to discuss this with a survivor of childhood
>abuse, yes, particularly if you try to tell me that my trauma (which I've
>spent a lot of time having to re-experience via flashbacks and through
>re-associating emotions to memories) is caused by what society thinks of
>me and not by my OWN horror at having been so invaded and mishandled by
>people who had no right to handle me that way.
I'm not telling you what you feel, and I hope that my writing style
doesn't give that impression. I'm simply requesting that you (plural)
extend the same courtesy to those who say that their childhood sexual
experiences were *not* abuse.
I'm also saying that I think in many cases the trauma is increased or
even sometimes created by the societal horror; I would not presume to
tell you about your experience.
>Also, nothing will persuade me that it's NOT okay for me to stand up for
>other victims of childhood sexual abuse, of incest, and say "They were
>victimized, too."
No argument yet again.
>However, it is NOT okay for an authority figure to trick, force, or
>otherwise coerce a child into having sex with them. It does DAMAGE. So
>does adult rape, so does any violation of self and of boundaries and of
>privacy to that extent. People who are mugged often develop Post
>Traumatic Stress Disorder, so do rape victims. Why do you think that a
>victim of child sexual abuse wouldn't? Or that society is just MAKING
>them think they were traumatized when they weren't?
But the question is, do you agree that it is possible for a child to
consent to sex? Do you agree with my statement in another post that
child sexual abuse is almost always accompanied by other forms of child
abuse?
If your answer to both questions is "yes", then I think you should also
agree with me that focusing on *sexual* abuse is the wrong approach;
that it is simply another facet of child abuse; and that to the extent
that child sexual abuse is worse than other forms of child abuse it is
at least *in part* due to society's taboos about sex.
>Doesn't matter. I'm mostly asking rhetorical questions now, and I'm not
>going to argue any more (if, indeed, we were arguing at all). I think I
>see your side, and to a point, I agree. However, I'm never going to say
>that it's "society" making victims of abuse think they were traumatized
>when they were actually peachy keen and fine and dandy, and it didn't
>matter that step-daddy made you do things you didn't think you could even
>SAY no to....
>
>bonni (survivor, not victim)
And I'm truly sorry if you feel that I'm adding to your pain. I just
think that in this newsgroup of all places, we should not automatically
toe the "party line" that sex in childhood is by definition Bad. I
don't want us to fall into the Dworkin Trap ("All het sex is rape.")
Bruce Scobie
Again, incest is not solely parent-child. Read a state lawbook or
dictionary. However, if you were to procreate with any of your kin
(parent, sister, etc), that would be inbreeding.
On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Martin Schroeder wrote:
> In <Pine.OSF.3.96.980206...@curly.cc.utexas.edu> Bruce Scobie <br...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
> >Incest does not just include child-parent sexual contact, it also includes
> >brother-sister, aunt-nephew, and in most states, 1st cousins. I would
>
> Incest: child-parent
> Inbreeding: brother-sister etc.
>
> Martin
>
> --
> Martin Schr"oder, M...@Dream.HB.North.DE
> (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)nfluence with large hammer (David Hendrix)
>
>
>
Bruce Scobie
American prudishness about sex has carved the 18 line as consenting
(however, some states like hawaii have lower ages of consent - in regards
to questions about statutory rape) Personally, 12-14 is way too young,
but 16 seems a reasonable age. I think most 12-14, and some 16 year olds
are still pretty naive (not saying there aren't mature ones) A law
regarding consent does do some good in protecting those. Then again,
what's to say there aren't naive 18 year olds, too?
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Jon Purvis wrote:
> In article <6bcs0e$5b7$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
> Renard A. DellaFave <rade...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >So, since I'm not a psychologist, if anyone could clue me in as to
> >why it's thought that kids can't have sex without it automatically
> >being abuse, I would honestly love to hear it.
>
> And while they're at this explaining, clue me in on why in America the
> age of consent is 18, in other places it's 16, and I hear that in the
> Netherlands girls of 12-14 can consent. Who's to say which of us is
> right. I'd certainly think that if the Dutch girls can handle it the we
> Americans could too.
>
Lee
> friend whom I had not seen in some time who tells me that last summer she
> went from being a capable, articulate, and humorous businesswoman to a
> shattered wreck given to suicidal thoughts, bouts of self-mutilation, and
> what seem to be actual episodes of multiple personality disorder -- because
> she found herself unable to avoid facing the incest in her childhood, which
> occurred when she was barely out of infancy.
Was this a "recovered memory" case, or was this something she'd been
aware of all the time?
My own was a dirty little secret held for about 34 years.
> IMO People who say incest can be harm-free are kidding themselves, out of
> what I think are very suspect motives.
I agree with you completely, but must qualify it to specify
adult-child relations.
I have no idea about adult or sibling involvement.
Charlene
Anon 747 b wrote:
>And I can quote people who say it was the most horrible thing in their
>lives.... who 20 years later still have problems with relationships because of
>trust destroyed.
>So, is it open season on kids, and hope they grow up with positive memories of
>it?
no of course not. that's a false dilemma. the point is that i can't
categorically say that it's always bad. that's all. the world is a strange
place.
i mean, i'm a -tiny- bit skeptical because most of my experience with people
who had sexual experiences with adults as children is very very limited.
just because people don't talk about it much. and so i have to depend on
accounts from things like TV and pop psychology and other things that I
don't trust at all to give me any kind of realistic account. when it comes
to hearing personal accounts, i know one or two people who are permanently
scarred, and one or two people who feel it was a wonderful thing. i have so
little data that i can't even -begin- to figure out why the former were
hurt so badly and the latter weren't. given the taboo in our society with
regard to child sexuality, we'll probably never find out.
i mean, yeah, i hate that people were hurt so terribly by adults when they
were children. but i also hate that people have to hide what they feel was
a positive experience for fear of being stigmatized.
as for the law... well, at this point i can't really say for sure what's
going on, so i figure, better safe than sorry. there's no reason to change
it unless we know for a fact that people aren't going to be hurt.
Anon 747 b
Aahz wrote:
>There are opinions and there are opinions. We're not talking about
>whether you like chocolate cake, here. And so the question arises
>about whether you think it is by definition a crime (as in, reason to
>prosecute someone and throw zir in jail) for a person of one age (or
>higher) to fuck a person of another age (or lower).
No, an opinion is just that - my feelings on something. It really doesn't
matter what that opinion is about. We obviously differ on this - and actually
I never mentioned criminal acts. I believe my exact words were 'serious
problem' which sounds like... gasp... an opinion.
>Or are you just talking?
Are you?
Anon 747 b
Igor wrote:
>Anne, it is terrible that nothing can change your mind.
About adults having sex with kids? Sorry, I call it having the courage of my
convictions. There is nothing that will convince me that adults fucking
children is good.
As an adult I can deal with unwanted sexual advances. How does a 6-year old
deal with it? Or a 15-year old? (take your pick) Children and teens have
enough problems with peer pressure as it is, adding sex with adults into the
mix is something I don't think they should have to deal with.
Personally, I find it odd that you think I should change my mind.
Anon 747 b
Charlene wrote:
>as for the law... well, at this point i can't really say for sure what's
>going on, so i figure, better safe than sorry. there's no reason to change
>it unless we know for a fact that people aren't going to be hurt.
Well, really that's my point. I'd rather err on the side of caution. I had a
bad (although not completed) sexual experience at 13, and a reasonbly good one
at 15. The first was definitely unwanted (and thwarted). The second was
supposed to be a blow-job that ended as a sexual encounter (something I wasn't
planning on, or ready for really).
Forgetting the first one, and focusing on the second one.... I really didn't
know how to stop the guy. No, I'm not calling it rape, but heavy coercion
might be a better word. Basically I initiated something I couldn't control.
He was easily 10, perhaps 15 years older than me - and was basically someone
who preyed on young girls.
It did affect my relationships with guys for pretty much the rest of
highschool. I basically avoided them. And my college years swung almost the
opposite way. I was agressive sexually, over the top almost. It was only
during my mid to late 20s that I got a better handle on sexual relationships.
My point is that sex is harder to deal with, the younger you are. Having one
partner considerably older than the other puts undue pressure on the younger
one. Something I really don't think kids need to deal with. I would prefer to
err on the side of caution when it comes to adult/child sex.
Lee
Aahz wrote:
>
> In article <34DD2169...@banet.net>, Lee <gen...@banet.net> wrote:
> >Aahz wrote:
> >>
> >> have particular problems with spelling, but you might try using one of
> >> the standard gender-neutral pronouns (e.g. "zie/zir") rather than making
> >> up a brand-new one ("shi").
> >
> >Since when have zie/zir been "standard" gender-neutral pronouns? I'm
> >not arguing, I'm really interested, as I've not heard of them before
> >and I could use some gender-neutral pronouns in my writings!
>
> "zie/zir" has been in use for about four years on the Net; "sie/hir" has
> an even longer lineage. For more info, check out the GNP FAQ at
> http://www.lumina.net/OLD/gfp/
>
> BTW, please remember to attribute quotes; I added mine back it at the
> top.
Thanks for the info and the reference. I'll check it out.
Lee
gango...@hotmail.com
Bonni Hall wrote:
> Typos being fixed, be patient with me:
>
> Behold! Bonni Hall (bo...@prairienet.org) did say unto us:
>
> > No
> > amount of "reasoning", no arguments to the contrary will persuade me that
> > I was not abused, and that it was my fault, and that _I_ have
> > anything to be ashamed of.
You don't have anything to be ashamed of. As long as you are secure in
yourself you owe no one any explanation.
Steve
Remus Shepherd
> >Anne, it is terrible that nothing can change your mind.
> About adults having sex with kids? Sorry, I call it having the courage of my
> convictions. There is nothing that will convince me that adults fucking
> children is good.
Won't change your opinions because someone asked you to? Good for
you, Anne! :)
I generally agree. Sex with children is something that probably falls
in the category of 'typically immoral'; while there may be some perfect
set of circumstances in which it turns out beneficial to the child, the
reality is that it is almost invariably damaging. And while one can argue
about how old a person has to be to be ready to handle sex emotionally,
that age is definitely going to be past the age of physical sexual maturity.
Is it worth playing with a person's life, for one's own pleasure, on
a million-to-one chance that it might turn out all right? Nope.
... ...
Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com), attempted to molest his 8-year old
sister when he was 13. Something I regret, and something she has
thankfully put behind her, and forgiven me for.
Rod
On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:07:45 CST, Lee <gen...@banet.net> wrote:
>> Name-calling and trying to scare people off of the subject by equating them
>> with the subject they are discussing is dirty, verbal infighting. It
>> contributes nothing to the debate and opens you up to a few righteous flames.
>
>You can be offended if you want (your choice, not my problem), but I
>stand by what I said about those who molest their children.
>
>> I happen to agree that adults who have sex with children, particularly their
>> own children need help, but that doesn't excuse this sort of attack.
>
>Attack on who? Child molesters? Oh, gee, I really have a lot of
>sympathy, I'm so ashamed to have spoken of those models of citizenry
>that way.
>
>Flame away, it doesn't matter. Adults commiting incest on children
>are still sick bastards.
>
Are they sick, or are they bastards? If their behaviour is a
sickness, then they need help to cure it. If it is their free and
voluntary choice to exploit children, then they need punishment or
deterrence, but you can't have it both ways. I lean towards the
sickness view in most cases - statistics indicate that children who
are themselves harmed in their development by being victims of child
abue are more likely to become abusers as adults. We need to break
this cycle, not just stigmatise them.
Rod
Rod
>In <Pine.OSF.3.96.980206...@curly.cc.utexas.edu> Bruce Scobie <br...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
>>Incest does not just include child-parent sexual contact, it also includes
>>brother-sister, aunt-nephew, and in most states, 1st cousins. I would
>
>Incest: child-parent
>Inbreeding: brother-sister etc.
>
>Martin
>
Your definition assumes that sex = breeding. While that was true
through most of history, it is not today. Furthermore, while all
countries ban parent-child sex, they vary in their attitude to other
relationships between closely related people. For example, I
understand that some US states do not allow marriage between first
cousins, which is legal in Britain.
Rod
Petulant2U
>But the question is, do you agree that it is possible for a child to
>consent to sex? Do you agree with my statement in another post that
>child sexual abuse is almost always accompanied by other forms of child
>abuse?
This is a very touchy subject for me, having worked in CPA (child protection
agency) for a number of years.
But if I'm to be objective, and just address this question I would say that
yes, a child can consent to sex and yes again, statistically, child sexual
abuse is almost always accompanied by other forms of abuse. Physical and/or
emotional.
Some children become sexual at an earlier age than others. I myself was
masturbating at 9 and having fantasies of sex. At that point, if an adult
wanted to have sex with me, I would have probably consented, and maybe enjoyed
it.
The question is, at that age, is it emotionally healthy for the child? As
children, we make many mistakes, this is why a parents job is so difficult. To
guide the child in making sound decisions so that they are not negatively
affected by making the wrong choices at such an early age.
Just becuase a young child may consent to sex, and yes, maybe even initiate it
with an adult, does not mean it won't be emotionally damaging to them in the
long run.
Responsibility comes with maturity and a child cannot be held responsible for a
decision made with out the beneifit of maturity..
I truly question those who claim to have had pleasurable early incestual sexual
relationships and do not feel that it was child abuse. Or that it had no
negative effect on them. If one was to examine closely, I believe emotional
problems could be detected. Taking the form of perhaps addictions, ie.; sex,
drugs, emotional addictions. Personality disorders, emotional disorders,
inability to commit to a relationship, sexual hang-ups, or any number of
conditions that might not be consciously connected to the early incestual
sexual experience.
As far as societal factions. Of course we, as humans who as a spieces habits
are to co-exsist with in a *clan* like situation, need to feel part of that
*clan* and or society. Rules of our society determine greatly our expectations
of each other.
If we practice acts that society considers unacceptable, outside society, it
gives us a sense of *wrong* doing, thus making us feel like an outsider, not
part of the *clan* and that can have emotional ramifications.
In my opinion, either way you slice it, no good can come of child sexual
experiences, incestual or otherwise. Whether it be abuse of consentual.
And I will also agree with one poster who says, at what age is a child mature
enough to handle sex? 16? 18? That is a good question. And one that is up
to the individual. But I think I can safely say, no child, under the age of
14, is mature enough to make sexual decisions.
Pet
djl...@magic.mv.com
Lee <gen...@tiac.net> wrote:
>I was also married to a school administrator who was responsible for
>having to file 51-A's (a report of suspected child abuse) on students
>in grades K-5. There are strict criteria to meet before filing, but
>almost every one she has filed in the last few decades had turned out
>to be a true case. The stories are sickening, trust me.
I have absolutely no reason to doubt you. Since I was on the
receiving end of some, er, 'interesting' treatment as a child, I can
only imagine how bad it can get.
However, those 51-A's, you're talking about (sounds familiar to
'forms' I've heard about in Massachusetts) are so easily abused if you
are NOT a teacher that I wonder if thye do any good at all.
Case in point was a co-worker of mine. It's winter, one of his sons
is walking across a parking lot not paying any attention to the cross
traffic. Dad yells for hsi son to stop, but son ignores him. Dad
goes after him and stops him by grabbing the shoulder of the winter
parka he was wearing before he goes into the next lane of traffic.
He turns the kid aroud and literally swipes at his rear end, which
resulted in the jacket tail flying up a bit.
A woman form across the parking lot (over 150' away) saw this.
My colleague was visited by the state police that night.
He went through hell for weeks and, know what? He can't sue the woman
for harassment. He's not even allowed to find out her name. Whatever
happened to the Constitutional right to confront your accuser?
I agree with you that teachers are (and should be if they aren't)
trained to see this sort of thing. They aren't perfect, but they have
a lot more experience.
+----/|-------------------------------------+-------------------+
| | | djl...@magic.mv.com \ Cute msg |
| / | djl...@msn.com \ goes here |
| ( ) http://www.mv.com/ipusers/magic \ |
+--`--' ----------------------------------------+---------------+
Lee
Rod wrote:
> are themselves harmed in their development by being victims of child
> abue are more likely to become abusers as adults. We need to break
> this cycle, not just stigmatise them.
Rod: personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them get (real) life in
prison, where they can't harm children again. As for stigmatizing ==
no, not the children. The adults? Absolutely.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <6bhttf$9sf$1...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> ccas...@cs.uml.edu (Colin Cashman) writes:
[...]
>But what
>about incestous fantasies, were the fantasizing person is a teen or adult?
To me there is a big diffrence between a fantasy and a reality. A fantasy
only effects one person and dosn't hurt other peaple. However carrying
out that fantisy would have quite neggative impacts.
As long as the fantisy remain in side the persons head then I personaly
can't see anything wrong with them.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.
Support NoCeM http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <aahzEo0...@netcom.com> aa...@netcom.com (Aahz) writes:
>In article <886843574.968791@cabal>,
>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>[1] Sorry I can't work out what gender Reka is.
>Which is probably the way zie wants it. ;-)
I've later found out that Reka is of the "She" persashion.
> BTW, I understand that you
>have particular problems with spelling, but you might try using one of
>the standard gender-neutral pronouns (e.g. "zie/zir") rather than making
>up a brand-new one ("shi").
Hir and sie (Sorry shi was a spelling error) have been used as standard
gender-neutral pronouns in the sub-cultures I frequent in. This is the
first time I've encouned these two.
Jon Purvis
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980208...@curly.cc.utexas.edu>,
Bruce Scobie <br...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>American prudishness about sex has carved the 18 line as consenting
>(however, some states like hawaii have lower ages of consent - in regards
>to questions about statutory rape) Personally, 12-14 is way too young,
>but 16 seems a reasonable age. I think most 12-14, and some 16 year olds
>are still pretty naive (not saying there aren't mature ones) A law
>regarding consent does do some good in protecting those. Then again,
>what's to say there aren't naive 18 year olds, too?
I agree that 12-14 seems too early to be having sex with adults, but I
think it's a result of our current culture, not some inherent thing.
People used to get married at 13 and 14 and were considered adults. They were
expected to be able to fully function in society as an adult, and I'm
guessing that included sexual acts. Now, however, it seems we want to
protect and shelter kids for a longer period. They aren't really expected
to start maturing and acting as adults until 18, and I see many (if not
most) college kids not acting as capable adults. I agree that 16-year-olds
no longer have the training and maturity to function as adults, but I
think we should start making sure those in the future can do so, rather
than further protecting and coddling them so that they never grow up. In
my humble (and dataless) opinion, this is probably why some European
countries have a lower consent age - they're expected to grow up and take
responsibility earlier than in the US.
Bruce Scobie
Addendum to the incest/child molestation thing: The sambia of New Guinea
initiate males as young as seven by (among other things) having them
perform fellatio on older, higher-level initiates. Shocking, yes, but -
this is their culture. Where do you draw the line - certainly, this would
be grounds for life in prison here, but a fact of life there. Why should
we necessarily adopt other cultures approaches to things. Granted, the
12-14 thing in the Netherlands is a bit different than what I previously
described in the Sambia, but still a far cry from what our country allows
(except for the few states like Hawaii, etc). We need to do what fits our
culture, and despite how repressed that may seem to many, that is the way
things are. I think statutory rape laws are misguided, but like I said,
they do serve a function.
bs
Reka G. Morvay
In article <19980208214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Petulant2U <petul...@aol.com> wrote:
>Some children become sexual at an earlier age than others. I myself was
>masturbating at 9 and having fantasies of sex. At that point, if an adult
>wanted to have sex with me, I would have probably consented, and maybe enjoyed
>it.
Many kids masturbate from a much earlier age than that. This is not to say
that a kid who masturbates has the ability to consent to sex with others,
adult or not.
>I truly question those who claim to have had pleasurable early incestual sexual
>relationships and do not feel that it was child abuse. Or that it had no
>negative effect on them. If one was to examine closely, I believe emotional
>problems could be detected. Taking the form of perhaps addictions, ie.; sex,
>drugs, emotional addictions. Personality disorders, emotional disorders,
>inability to commit to a relationship, sexual hang-ups, or any number of
>conditions that might not be consciously connected to the early incestual
>sexual experience.
The problems you mentioned could be detected in MANY otherwise normal
adults. Personality eccentricities are simply milder versions of
DSM-defined psychological disorders, and virtually every human being has
some sort of a psychological problem or hangup. This is not a fair or
accurate way to judge the effects of childhood incest experiences. Again,
I'm not arguing that incest cannot leave negative effects, I'm saying you
cannot judge incest just because negative effects exist, since negative
effects exist in almost all (if not all) adults, whether or not they had
incestuous experiences.
>In my opinion, either way you slice it, no good can come of child sexual
>experiences, incestual or otherwise. Whether it be abuse of consentual.
I don't know whether you meant solo sexual experiences or partner sexual
experience, so I will address both.
Psychologists will disagree with your statement. Specifically, the quotes
below are taken from the _Handbook of Human Sexuality_ by Wolman and
Money, eds. The section is entitled "Childhood Sexuality" and was written
by Floyd M. Martinson.
>From birth to 3 years...
"Boy babies are sometimes born with erections and girls demonstrate
vaginal librication almost at the start." (p 33)
"Orgasm has been reported for a four-month-old female baby and has been
observed in boys as young as five months." (p 33)
"When personal encounters [between mother and infant] are normal, genital
play results. If the encounters between mother and infant were 'optimal'
in the first year of life, genital play was present in all cases, and
general development surpassed that of the average infant in all respects.
If the encounters between mother and infant were problematic, genital play
was much rarer, and other activities tended to replace it. Finally, when
infant-mother encounters were absent, genital play was completely
missing." (p 41)
These statements strongly imply that genital play in children under 3
years of age (!!!) is a strong indicator of the quality of their
relationship with their mother. If the relationship is healthy, the child
will engage in genital play. I don't know if this counts as a "child
sexual experience" in your opinion.
Early childhood (3-8 years)...
"Many children 'experiment' with one another sexually. Approximately half
of the mothers in the Sears study (1957) reported some activity that could
be identified as sex play. Some play was between brothers and sisters,
some with neighbor children, some with children of the same sex, and some
with the opposite sex." (p 46)
On sexual encounters with adults...
"Intimacy of a normal part of the maturation process of children, and
pedophilia, if no violent aggression or physical harm accompanies the
activity, need not create sexual trauma for the child. [...] Parental
distress, anger, and anxiety, a police investigation, and a court trial
may have a more traumatic effect on the child than the sexual experience
itself." (p 52)
"No longer do we [authorities on child development] feel that early
discovery of genital differences, child-child sex play, or even a single
occurrence of sexual molestation will have lasting ill effects on a child
in a stable pattern of family-community experiences. Healthy children are
not as easily upset by sexual experiences as some theorists would have us
believe." (p 53)
The general conclusion of this article, which summarized the major
research findings about childhood sexuality, is that early expressions of
sexuality are a marker for healthy socialization, and in every way a
normal experience for a child, if not accompanied by aggression. Even
adult-child sexual encounters need not be harmful by definition.
I am fully aware that I may very likely be flamed for posting such an
obviously unpopular view. I do not mean to belittle the experiences of
those who have been harmed by child abuse or molestation. I just want to
point out that depriving children of their sexual nature, and "freaking
out" on them when they express it, can be just as unhealthy for them as
outright abuse.
Reka
Aahz
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.98020...@curly.cc.utexas.edu>,
First of all, this is an international newsgroup, so "our culture" is
really nonsense. Secondly, even if you disagree with that statement,
the USA is a melting pot of many cultures and does *not* have an "our
culture".
Quite frankly, this kind of attitude sickens me more than anything else,
because it leads to cases such as the following:
* A Yemenite man in New Hampshire (?) was charged with child sexual
abuse because he was following his cultural standard of kissing his
infant boy's penis in a *non-sexual* manner.
* A Danish tourist was arrested in New York City for leaving her baby in
a stroller outside the restaurant -- just like she does at home.
In my opinion, the only truly American way to handle this, if we believe
our own mythos, is to allow children of any age to engage in sexual
activities as long as the other partner(s) secure the written permission
of the parents. While I don't think it is necessarily harmful, it
wouldn't bother me if it were a crime for a legal guardian to engage in
sexual activities with zir ward -- but the definition of "sexual
activities" would need to be rather strict to avoid cases like the first
one mentioned above.
Lee
Reka, no one said children do not have a developing sexuality of
their own. Of course they do. And yes, PHYSICAL aspects of sexual
development and activity can be observed in children of various
ages, though I note you tried to state the youngest noted.
The problem (as said several times) is not with children's own
developing sexuality...and I say developing because physical
responses such as erection and lubrication are only a very small
part of a whole sexuality and often indicative of nothing by
response to physical stimuli... no, the problem as mentioned several
times is adults who decide they just have to fuck children, and then
sometimes rationalize it because the children have erections or
lubricate on their own. "Hey, they must want it!" When in fact the
child may have no idea what is going on with their own bodies, and
is nowhere near prepared for the rape that is about to occur.
Petulant2U
Aahz writes:
>I've had a few. I've also known a much smaller number of people who've
>had sexual contact with a parent that so far as I could see was *not*
>abuse. Every single case of sexual abuse that I'm aware of was
>accompanied by other forms of child abuse.
The key words here are *as far as I could see* As I wrote in an earlier post.
There are many symptoms of early incestual sexual relationships that may not
be easily detected. Like addictions, inabilitiy to have healthy
relationships. Trust issues. Personality disorders that can be excused away
as being *high strung* or *reserved*.
I believe, though I could be wrong, there are always the exceptions, that the
norm is when children are involved in these situations, it has an effect on
thier emotional growth.
Pet
Lee
Aahz wrote:
> First of all, this is an international newsgroup, so "our culture" is
> really nonsense.
True. he just needed to specify the U.S. culture.
> Secondly, even if you disagree with that statement,
> the USA is a melting pot of many cultures and does *not* have an "our
> culture".
The "melting pot" analogy has never really been true. Although there
is mixing of cultural traditions and foods, etc., there remain today
enclaves of people by race, religion, nationality, etc.
The U.S. does indeed have a culture of it's own. If you travel to
other parts of the world for any length of time, you'll note that
fact as well as how hard we try to export it and how badly some
other people want it, while others don't. In some countries, they
can't get enough American; France, on the other hand, would like to
limit our cultural influences.
> Quite frankly, this kind of attitude sickens me more than anything else,
> because it leads to cases such as the following:
> * A Danish tourist was arrested in New York City for leaving her baby in
> a stroller outside the restaurant -- just like she does at home.
There is a lot more to that story than you are relating. That
particular couple had been up on charges of neglect and abuse before
and apparently with good cause. This was NOT their first encounter
with the law nor with our customs.
Elocutu...@hotmail.com
In article <34DCC8...@feist.com>,
silv...@feist.com wrote:
>
> Jon Purvis wrote:
> >
> > In article <6bcs0e$5b7$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
> > Renard A. DellaFave <rade...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >So, since I'm not a psychologist, if anyone could clue me in as to
> > >why it's thought that kids can't have sex without it automatically
> > >being abuse, I would honestly love to hear it.
> >
> > And while they're at this explaining, clue me in on why in America the
> > age of consent is 18, in other places it's 16, and I hear that in the
> > Netherlands girls of 12-14 can consent. Who's to say which of us is
> > right. I'd certainly think that if the Dutch girls can handle it the we
> > Americans could too.
> >
> well, but I doubt an American politician could handle the result of
> trying to lower the age.
And keep in mind that the age of consent also varies from state to state in
the United States. It runs from 14 in one or two states to 19 in others.
Apparently, the same sixteen-year-old girl has the wisdom to consent in
Massachusettes, but not in New Jersey.
Must be something in the water.
--Elocutus
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Elocutu...@hotmail.com
In article <19980208055...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
anon...@aol.com (Anon 747 b) wrote:
>
> Charlene wrote:
>
> >i'd agree with you, except that i know people who had sexual
> >relationships at that age with adults who claim now as adults that the
> >relationship, far from being harmless, was actually one of the most
> >positive things in their lives so far. and i'm not talking about
> >impoverished lives, either.
>
> And I can quote people who say it was the most horrible thing in their
> lives.... who 20 years later still have problems with relationships because
of
> trust destroyed.
I thik that, as long as we keep this in the narrow band of parent-child
incest, it qualifies as a Universally Bad Thing(TM).
The problem comes down to one of consent. The relationship we have as
children with our parents as children is one of forced dependance and legally-
binding obedience. There is a reason why a contract between a minor and
their parent is usually legally unenforcable past the age of majority.
The relationship between a parent and a child is legally and culturally the
only one we are involuntarily entered into where we (as children) do not have
the right to refuse consent for even the most basic things. A parents sets
bedtimes, car privileges, and a host of other, most basic and defining
characteristics of your childhood. They can legally decide which school or
church you attend, whether you receive medical treatment, and completely
control your financial transactions.
In this sort of relationship, a child cannot realistically be expected to
give consent. The entire relationship is coercive. This may be necessary
for child rearing, but it is absolutely disasterous in a sexual relationship.
(If I need to make the case that coercive, non-consensual sex is a
Universally Bad Thing, I will do so.)
Aahz
In article <19980208215...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Question is, can you find a population of people who had sexual
experiences as children but did *not* experience child abuse as normally
defined and compare that population to people who had no sexual
experience and no abuse? Which population is "healthier"? Can you
define "healthy" in a meaningful way?
It seems to me that *until* we have evidence that a behavior pattern
causes harm we should avoid throwing the full weight of society's
displeasure onto those who contravene the standards. Otherwise, we
leave ourselves open to situations where homosexuality is a disease,
where consensual BDSM is a crime, where a 15-year old can be thrown in
jail for having sex with a 13-year old, and where we can claim that a
rape victim "asked for it".
All these are cases where we presume to know a person's mind better than
the person who possesses it. It's the good ol' slippery slope argument,
and while I normally dislike appealing to it, it seems to me that we
have ample historical evidence of its validity with respect to sexual
issues.
Charlene
Elocutu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Charlene wrote:
>> >i'd agree with you, except that i know people who had sexual
>> >relationships at that age with adults who claim now as adults that the
>> >relationship, far from being harmless, was actually one of the most
>> >positive things in their lives so far. and i'm not talking about
>> >impoverished lives, either.
>I thik that, as long as we keep this in the narrow band of parent-child
>incest, it qualifies as a Universally Bad Thing(TM).
For the record, I wasn't talking about parent-child incest. i'm sorry if
that wasn't clear from the beginning. everyone i've ever heard talk about
prent-child incest from a first-person perspective has said that it was
bad.
Petulant2U
>I am fully aware that I may very likely be flamed for posting such an
>obviously unpopular view. I do not mean to belittle the experiences of
>those who have been harmed by child abuse or molestation. I just want to
>point out that depriving children of their sexual nature, and "freaking
>out" on them when they express it, can be just as unhealthy for them as
>outright abuse.
>
> Reka
>
Thank you for that information. My statement, *in my opinion no good can come
from early child sexual experiences, incestual or otherwise* was in direct
reference to the subject title of incestual sexual acts between adults and
children.
I agree with all the studies you quoted. Sexual developement starts shortly
afterr birth. A child sexually experimenting with themselves is a healthy
thing. Even children, experimenting with other children, is a healthy thing.
What is not healthy, is adults having sexual encounter's with young children.
The child looks to the adult as the care giver, the teacher and the protector.
When a child is coached by an adult on sexual practices, and is not allowed to
develope their own sexuality at their own pace, it interfers with natures
natural process.
And nothing good can come from messing with Mother nature <g>
Of course, this is just my opinion
pet
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <19980208055...@ladder03.news.aol.com> anon...@aol.com (Anon 747 b) writes:
[...]
>If you want to pick an age - lets stick with 18.
Why the age of 18? Historicly 18 was picked because it was a good age to
send off to war. <Not quite serious> Perhaps during the teenage years we
should have tests to establice the maturaty and sutibility of the peaple
involved befor thay are allowed to have sex?</Not quite serious>.
You object to Adults haveing sex with children, but teenagers are not
adults nor are thay childeren.
Bruce Scobie
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Igor wrote:
> In soc.sexuality.general, Aahz <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
> * Bruce Scobie <br...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> * >Addendum to the incest/child molestation thing: The sambia of New
> * >Guinea initiate males as young as seven by (among other things) having
> * >them perform fellatio on older, higher-level initiates. Shocking, yes,
> * >but - this is their culture. Where do you draw the line - certainly,
> *
> * First of all, this is an international newsgroup, so "our culture" is
> * really nonsense. Secondly, even if you disagree with that statement,
> * the USA is a melting pot of many cultures and does *not* have an "our
> * culture".
>
> I just thought about something. Putting someone's penis in one's mouth
> and sucking it is not very different, as a physical act, from any other
> physical human interaction, for example, sucking someone's finger or
> kissing someone in the cheeks. Right?
>
> The difference begins when we attach emotional significance to some
> acts but not others.
>
> Think about it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither then, as a physical act, would there be a difference between
sticking a thermometer in a child's anus vs. a penis. There is a major
difference between the two acts. Certainly, if humans were without
emotions, there would not be a difference - but this is a pointless
arguement. If we were without emotions and devoid of thought, we wouldn't
be discussing this. The penis is a sexual organ, the finger is not.
Reka G. Morvay
In article <19980209231...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Petulant2U <petul...@aol.com> wrote:
>I agree with all the studies you quoted. Sexual developement starts shortly
>afterr birth. A child sexually experimenting with themselves is a healthy
>thing. Even children, experimenting with other children, is a healthy thing.
>What is not healthy, is adults having sexual encounter's with young children.
>The child looks to the adult as the care giver, the teacher and the protector.
>When a child is coached by an adult on sexual practices, and is not allowed to
>develope their own sexuality at their own pace, it interfers with natures
>natural process.
Pet,
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment here. Following your line
of reasoning, a child is also forced to move beyond his/her "natural" pace
in just about everything that a parent (or adult) has to teach. Take
toilet training, take learning how to read, take almost any behavior an
adult is expected to teach a kid, and you will find that this is NOT a
thing the kid would naturally learn on his/her own at that age. This is
why the adult is expected to teach them about it.
The only thing different about sex is how hung-up this society is about
it. Because it's such a taboo subject for adults, they fall under the
assumption that children (being the innocent creatures that they are)
could have nothing to do with such a prurient subject, and must be
protected at any cost. In reality, the child looks to the parent for
information about sex, their bodies, intimacy and physical/emotional
bonding.
I think you and I are approaching this topic from two different extremes.
Unfortunately, I think my extreme is much more prevalent than your extreme
in today's society. And this extreme consists of making children
systematically believe that their bodies are dirty, especially things
"down there," of making sex and physical intimacy dirty and forbidden, of
depriving children of even the most basic language to talk about sexual
matters, and of blocking their attempts of learning about themselves and
sexuality. I think this extreme is depressingly common in this country.
To give you an example, I just got my Shape magazine in the mail
yesterday. (Shape magazine is about health and fitness for women.) In the
letters section, a woman indignantly complained about a picture of a nude
woman which appeared in the previous issue which showed full backside (not
frontal) nudity. The woman was complaining that she did not think Shape
was the kind of magazine she'd have to hide from her kids. I felt SO sorry
for this woman's kids that they are growing up obviously without the
chance to take a glimpse at another human being's body. Very quickly, they
will pick up their mother's attitude that a naked human being is somehow
not for for "decent" people to look at. It's things like that which make
me so adamant about this topic. Children NEED to feel that their bodies
are good, positive things if they are to go on to lead healthy, happy
lives, with healthy, happy relationships.
Your extreme is, I admit, more frightening and scary, and melodramatic.
However, it occurs relatively rarely (as compared with the other extreme I
just described) and can be partially attributed to the effects of the
sexual oppressiveness of this culture. There are very, very few cases of
adults systematically preying on children for sexual pleasure, in fact, as
a previous poster pointed out, sexual abuse occurs as part of a larger
picture of child abuse. Prevent the child abuse, and you prevent the
sexual abuse, in most cases.
In the remaining few cases where adults prey on children with no regard
for the children's well-being, I agree, prosecute to the full extent of
the law. On the other hand, let's not classify all sexual encounters
between childen and adults (or children and older children) as abuse, when
it's well-documented that children don't experience it that way.
Reka
Aahz
In article <6bnp50$a2l$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>,
<Elocutu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Apparently, the same sixteen-year-old girl has the wisdom to consent in
>Massachusettes, but not in New Jersey.
>
>Must be something in the water.
Given New Jersey water, not surprising at all.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"...changing the world one flame at a time." --SFJ
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
"If we had some ham, we could have ham & eggs, if we had some eggs." --RH
There may or may not be a smiley above.
"..., and some of you may regard all women as evil traps that exist
only to tease, torture, and suck out your very soul." --DrMax
There's a difference between a person who gets shit zie doesn't
deserve, and a person who gets more shit than zie deserves.
Sometimes, you're not just out of left field, you're coming in
all the way from outer space.
Member of the Groucho Marx Fan Club
Usenet is not a democracy. It is a weird cross between an anarchy
and a dictatorship.
The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question,
but to post the wrong information.
"You really pop my zits, baby!"
"First one back from the bathroom gets to be the bottom."
Adopt A Process -- stop killing all your children!
"I had lots of reasonable theories about children myself, until I
had some." -- Michael Rios
"In the end, outside of spy agencies, people are far too trusting and
willing to help." -- Ira Winkler
"I won't accept a model of the universe in which free will, omniscient
gods, and atheism are simultaneously true." -- M
"do you want my self-identities alphabetically, chronologically, or in
random order?" -- Misha
"And if that makes me an elitist...I couldn't be happier." -- JMS
"Perhaps God rewards martyrs, but life seldom does..." --Ulrika O'Brien
"Not everything in life has a clue in front of it...." --JMS
Shadows '96: when you're tired of "Cthulhu for President"
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste." --Steve Jobs
(From _Triumph of the Nerds_ PBS special)
"You could make Eskimos emigrate to the Sahara by vigorously arguing --
at hundreds of screens' length -- for the wonder, beauty, and utility of
snow." -- PNH to RB in r.a.sf.f
"as long as we like the same operating system, things are cool." -- piranha
"If I have a biological clock, it's either broken or needs a new
battery." --JDO'C
"If sarcasm were posted to the Net, would anybody notice?" --JDN
gfarber: Thank God, or the belief system of your choice.
pddb: Does human perversity count as a belief system?
"I guess I prefer to just have sex with my partners, without bringing my
God into it, except maybe as a sort of omniscient voyeur." --JDO'C
What if there were no rhetorical questions?
Want a high-end tech support job with 25 calls/week? Write me!
"Had he not gone to Z'ha'dum, he would've avoided that fate, but
caused another." --JMS
#: 645556 S6/Babylon 5: Spoilers / 05-Feb-97 18:41:51
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
"Just because I'm selling you into slavery doesn't mean we can't be
friends." B-movie cliche Hall of Fame (_Bounty Hunter: 2002_)
"I use condoms. I get pregnant if I *think* about having sex."
-- by way of LJM
"Why do you like my boyfriend to tie you up and beat me.?"
-- ELIZA generates a poly moment
"That doesn't stop me from wanting to work all three of them over with
the clue stick for while, with no safewords allowed." --abostick
"real love can't be explained by simplistic platitudes." --piranha
"If there's an alter-ego, does that mean there's an alter-id?" --SFJ
'"Crisp" is a good quality for crackers; less so for pot roast.' --pnh
"This is Usenet. We're all masturbating in public places." -DH
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesman and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Every so often, the sky rains lemons. And sometimes, when you try to
make lemonade, you discover that the lemons contain H2SO4.
"Every flame is sacred, every flame is great." --Orc
"Some people should not be allowed to use morphing software." --SFJ
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
-- Anatole France
"You have fundamentally misunderstood Usenet. Please go read the articles
posted to news.announce.newusers, particularly those which clearly explain
that Usenet is not a right, that Usenet is not a government, and that
Usenet is not a democracy. Hope this helps." -- rra
I don't really mind a person having the last whine, but I do mind
someone else having the last self-righteous whine.
"Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction
listen to weather forecasts and economists?" -- Kelvin Throop III
"If you want a picture of the future of Usenet, imagine a foot stuck in
a human mouth -- forever." -- Avram Grumer
I guess I mostly see Life [tm] as a process of closing doors that you
might want to go through.
"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been
searching for evidence which could support this." -- Bertrand Russell
"Life is like a simile." -- /bin/fortune
Life as a contractor: when they tell you it's going to rain, sometimes
it drizzles and sometimes it pours.
"Then maybe God can tell us if God wants to protest the results of the vote."
-- Russ Alberry, responding to a news.groups complaint of voting irregularity
"Beware of companies that claim to be like a family. They might not be
lying." -- Jill Lundquist
"Don't be so humble -- you are not that great." -- Golda Meir
"Real programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress
freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who
wear white socks." -- /bin/fortune
"You do not make history; you can only hope to survive it." -- G'kar
[going to jail for obscenity] "25 years?! All I'm guilty of is bad
taste." -- from _People vs. Larry Flynt_
"...some experts might say a C++ program is not object-oriented without
inheritance and virtual functions. As one of the early Smalltalk
implementors myself, I can say they are full of themselves." --zconcept
I surf faster than you do, monkey boy. (My take on Netscape vs. Lynx)
Renard A. DellaFave
In article <34de9636...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>,
Alexandra <net...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:13:55 CST, rade...@unity.ncsu.edu (Renard A.
>>I don't mean to offend, but I just don't understand why it is always
>>assumed that sex is "damaging" or "traumatic" to children. It's as
>I'm glad you made the comment of "I don't understand why...." because
>it's obvious that you really do not. (I'm not flaming you. Believe me
I can tell you're not flaming me, and neither did Bonni (I think that's
who, anyway). I'll check out the search engines like you suggested.
And, yeah, I agree there's a world of difference between your own Dad at
age 6 or so, and someone unrelated to you in the preteen years.
But still, when I read the news, people seem to react to the latter
just as strongly as the former.
I mean, I guess I can understand when I think of age 6 or so, when you
really, truly have no idea what the heck is going on, and it's probably
not being done with the nicest of intentions...with good acting I'd think
it might not be disturbing then, but as soon as you realized what was going
on, a few years later, that the person you respected was just 'using' you,
yeah, I can understand how that's "damaging and traumatic".
Now then, how early a child can be honestly interested in sex, and could
experiment with it, even with an adult, without it being damaging, I don't know
and I suppose like everything else it varies depending on the child.
Well, thanks for not flamin' me, and helping me understand a bit better.
>you would know.) The reason an adult goes to a child is so they can
>dominate another person. It's never a good experience for a child. The
>only time I've read otherwise from an adult surviver was because they
>too had become abusers and were trying to justify their actions.
>You later talk about how you kinda wish an older woman had come to you
>when you were young. There's a big difference between an adult fantasy
>and being the unwilling victim of incest.
>Go to the search engines on the Net and read just a few articles on
>incest. You'll find just how damaging it is, and how the cycles must
>be broken.
>
>Kisses,
>Alexandra
>http://www.mindspring.com/~netck/index.htm
>
Renard A. DellaFave
In article <6beloe$d0v$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Reka G. Morvay <re...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Basically, I think you just stepped into a whole big can of worms here.
I was aware that might have been the case, but you see, I have this
asbestos suit handy ;)
>ingored "everything down there." If you want to read a good book about
>this, get the _Handbook of Human Sexuality_ by Benjamin B. Wolman and John
I think that might be the best way to enhance my understanding, so I'll
check that one out.
>A lot of this is cultural. There is a huge amount of hysteria about child
>abuse nowadays, and in a country where sex is so taboo a subject, what
>could be scarier than child sex abuse? In reality, most kids are sexual
That was what I figured was mostly behind it and,
>It does a disservice to both healthy kids,
>and to victims of genuine abuse, to label all manifestations of childhood
That's often a problem with reactions to "something wrong in society".
Folks bring out the shotguns, and label so much "bad" in an attempt to
get attention (assuming others will take on attenuated versions of
their cause, so that they need to overstate their argumets). Maybe it
works in some cases, but to me, that always seems a mistake. Attack
the problem, whatever it is, directly. An honest objection seems
much more convincing than zealous enthusiasm and overstatement.
Renard A. DellaFave
>I'm not talking about normal CHILDHOOD sexual development. I'm
>talking about the subject of this thread -- INCEST -- and there is
>No excuse for it anytime, ever. Trying to change the subjec to
Excuse me, but yes, I did broaden the topic with my post. That is,
I believe, permitted.
In _addition_ to incest, I was bewildered by this news story about
a schoolteacher going to prison for sex with a student who was old
enough to get her pregnant. Granted, I haven't heard anything about
what the boy thought of it, or whether his opinion is even being
considered.
>childhood sexual development is disingenuous.
divergent perhaps, disingenuous, no.
HB
Renard A. DellaFave wrote:
>
> >I'm not talking about normal CHILDHOOD sexual development. I'm
> >talking about the subject of this thread -- INCEST -- and there is
> >No excuse for it anytime, ever. Trying to change the subjec to
>
> Excuse me, but yes, I did broaden the topic with my post. That is,
> I believe, permitted.
Of course. However, for clarity, it's useful to change the Subject
header so that other's know that you have changed the subject.
Otherwise, it does tend to get a little confusing. Particularly when
some people are makign what appear to be general statements, but
assuming that because of the Subject being "Incest" that you will know
they intend to only be talking about incest....
Oh well, back to the regularly scheduled programmming -- SEX.
- HB
Stef
Petulant2U <petul...@aol.com> wrote:
>Aahz writes:
>
>>I've had a few. I've also known a much smaller number of people who've
>>had sexual contact with a parent that so far as I could see was *not*
>>abuse. Every single case of sexual abuse that I'm aware of was
>>accompanied by other forms of child abuse.
>
>
>The key words here are *as far as I could see* As I wrote in an earlier post.
> There are many symptoms of early incestual sexual relationships that may not
>be easily detected. Like addictions, inabilitiy to have healthy
>relationships. Trust issues. Personality disorders that can be excused away
>as being *high strung* or *reserved*.
Addictions, difficulty with relationships, trust issues, and acting high
strung or reserved occur in a large portion of the population. Just because
a person with a certain personality trait had sexual experiences as a child
does not mean the sexual experiences caused the personality trait.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
Lee
Reka G. Morvay wrote:
> My only point is that definitions blur, depending on the time, place
> and culture of your environment. What's not okay in this culture may
> have been okay in the past, and in fact, may still be okay in other
> cultures. This is not a blanket approval for anything and everything
> that may have happened. However, look at the people in those other
> cultures/ages and draw your own conclusion whether they were
> damaged.
Reka, I have heard self-avowed pedophiles using the same rationales
I've heard here for their actions.
"Well, it was okay in such-and-such a society 200 years ago, what's
wrong with our society that we don't allow it?" (It was a
*different* society than we have. How many times have you heard that
our own society has changed?).
"I was just *helping* the child, trying to TEACH him/her about
love."
"But he/she wanted it, I could tell." (An 8-year-old girl
lubricates, or a 6-year-old boy gets an erection; physical responses
to stimuli that have little or nothing to do with being emotionally
and intellectually able to make a decision about sex).
No, Reka, I don't think parents in the normal course of caring for
children are sexually inappropriate.
But those who are need to be dealt with as severely as we can. It's
my opinion (and I know how much that's worth) that NO adult has any
business seeking sexual gratification (whether in the form of
physical pleasure, power, whatever) with a child.
Renard A. DellaFave
In article <19980208214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Petulant2U <petul...@aol.com> wrote:
>Some children become sexual at an earlier age than others. I myself was
>masturbating at 9 and having fantasies of sex. At that point, if an adult
was just another form of play.
>wanted to have sex with me, I would have probably consented, and maybe enjoyed
>The question is, at that age, is it emotionally healthy for the child? As
That is the question, and I tend to think if you enjoy it, and want to do it,
and thus aren't 'being used' then it's probably pretty neutral on the
emotional health thing, or at least no worse than a million other things
kids do that they want to do and, who knows, may regret later...or not.
>Just becuase a young child may consent to sex, and yes, maybe even initiate it
>with an adult, does not mean it won't be emotionally damaging to them in the
Now here's where I would like to hear a better explanation of why.
>negative effect on them. If one was to examine closely, I believe emotional
>problems could be detected. Taking the form of perhaps addictions, ie.; sex,
Oh, heck, if you examine most anyone closely, you'll detect things that
our modern psychology will call "emotional problems". Most of them are
just being human and having a personality.
Not to belittle the legitimate problems, that is.
>drugs, emotional addictions. Personality disorders, emotional disorders,
>inability to commit to a relationship, sexual hang-ups, or any number of
>conditions that might not be consciously connected to the early incestual
And which AFAIK probably aren't connected, but would be easy for
some to make connecting theories about. Again, not that c-a sex
can't cause problems, but to assume it always does just because
"on close examination you might find emotional problems" that could
have a million other causes, seems, well, to be using flawed reasoning.
>As far as societal factions. Of course we, as humans who as a spieces habits
>are to co-exsist with in a *clan* like situation, need to feel part of that
>*clan* and or society. Rules of our society determine greatly our expectations
Some of us would rather not be a part of society any more than we have to
be in order to A> support ourselves and B> avoid unduly annoying those
around us.
>If we practice acts that society considers unacceptable, outside society, it
>gives us a sense of *wrong* doing, thus making us feel like an outsider, not
Well that sounds like life to me, if more on a mental level (believing things)
than on a physical (practicing acts).
I mean, call it what you will, but it seems to me that any intelligent,
thinking human being is going to feel like an outsider to some degree
in "normal society".
OTOH, being an outsider does have its advantages, so I wouldn't call
it a "bad thing" over all.
And, sure, it _could_ give you emotional troubles and it _does_ make life
a little harder as emotional support (and kindred souls) may be harder
to find, but, heck, that's life.
>In my opinion, either way you slice it, no good can come of child sexual
>experiences, incestual or otherwise. Whether it be abuse of consentual.
That sounds overly general, but, OK, that
's your opinion...and I was asking for opinions as well as
explanations in my original post.
>to the individual. But I think I can safely say, no child, under the age of
>14, is mature enough to make sexual decisions.
Eh, I think I probably was, though, sure, if the adult (or other teen)
was ill-willed enough it could have been a horrible experience.
But, then, even now, I could pursue sex with someone my own age and
have an awful, abusive, situation result from it.