I'm not buying any justification of sex upon children in any way, shape or form. You can tell me how its a disease or some other form of sickness or depression... whatever. I couldn't care less. You try that shit with one of my kids and I'll kill you - very painfully - PERIOD.

From http://www.seattlepi.com/local/36800...fenders23.html

and this from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/ma...uvenile-t.html

Just because we haven't caught the news stories doesn't mean they aren't there. And not all incidents make the news. Sex crimes in adults are on the wane. Juvenile offenders are increasing. Some of that may be an actual increase, but some of it may be classifyling as a crime an instance where the child didn't know or understand boundaries. Perhaps the part of sean's post which you considered insincere and dishonest may actually have some foundation. I'm not suggesting that the young lad who abused his little sister didn't need teaching those boundaries; nor am I saying it wasn't abuse. But I am suggesting that he may have been engaging in sexual curiosity; the two young lads who'd been friends for years, though there was an age gap, may have been experimenting. I'm not even suggesting that classifying these as assult is wrong: but I think it does show that there may be some basis for sean's claim that child sexuality is in itself deemed a problem, even if there is no 'abuse'. You don't need to agree with him. But I think it's unfair to take that as an indication of any lack of sincerity on his part.

Second. Well stated.

I didn't see justification for adults having sex with children. I saw some insights into what it's like to grow up finding yourself attracted to children.

Sean, thank you for your posts. I think you've addressed the questions I had in a frank and thoughtful manner; probably more thoughtful than the tone of my original post deserved!

When he says

it makes me question this

Because I wonder if he's merely quibbling over definitions, as in 'I've never abused anyone because what I did wasn't abuse, it was love.' Maybe his statement can be taken at face value, maybe it can't. But his sexuality is what's in question, not that of the children. Making anything about the children's sexuality gets perilously close to the concept that all children are being "teases," as was discussed earlier in the thread.

I know where you're coming from, Clodfobble. I have a similar reaction to 'child love' advocates claiming to be working for the sexual emancipation of children. The problem for me is, philosophically I have to agree with them. Social control of sexuality, beginning in childhood, is the bedrock of authoritarian culture.

When you use lines like the standard party line of many abusive pedophiles you are simply inverting my own impulse to reject the 'standard party line' of sex negative puritans.

As a Popperian, I understand the difference between absolute and relative belief, and central to this is the significance of falsification. Like black swans, positive childhood sexual experiences with adults do occur, however rarely. These occurrences require us to reject the hypothesis that such experiences are necessarily harmful. The parameters of what we should term 'abuse' are therefore subject to negotiation.

But before you burst a blood vessel, I have to tell you that as an autonomous being with a capacity for independent thought, rather than a mouthpiece of the 'abusive pedophile party', I have given a great deal of thought to resolving these areas of conflict, especially where they impact on my personal relationships. Whatever my personal beliefs, I understand the social constraints on adult sexual conduct with children, and I'm quite able to conform to them.

That said, I've never compromised my personal beliefs or logic to ingratiate myself with friends, even tho there have been many occasions where it would have made my life much easier. What I have done is learn to hear their side of the story. This has been made much easier for me by their reciprocal respect for my own point of view. Being listened to and having people seek to understand why I feel the way I do has made it much easier for me to respect their feelings; in particular their visceral and intuitive, but not always logical protective instinct for their children.

There's a lot to this. I don't need to be convinced of the absolute need for particular limits a parent wishes to place around another adult's conduct with their child. The parent has a right to place those limits, however trivial. (And in the case of children for whom nobody cares, well perhaps love is something they can use, even if it includes an element of desire. What I won't forgive is adults who exploit disadvantaged children for their own personal satisfaction.)

Also, and this is important too, if the harms of non-violent, non-coercive adult/child sexual contact (or 'abuse') are primarily sociogenic, as I believe they are, that does not mean they are not still harms. Teaching a child to swim is not generally considered harmful, but if the water is infested with sharks, as these waters assuredly are, then it would be irresponsible to lead a child into them. Involving children in transgressions, causing them to keep secrets, exposing them to shame and embarrassment, all of these are clearly potentially harmful, even tho they are all consequences of society's negative evaluation of sexual pleasure. Nobody who claims to love them could expose children to any of this with a clear conscience.

But fabricating and exaggerating extreme harms as a putative consequence of certain kinds of benign childhood sexual experience, as occurred during the masturbation panics of the past two centuries, and as is now occurring with respect to childhood sexual experiences with adults, amounts to a kind of hate speech directed against paedophiles. The suggestion that paedophilia is a kind of praeternatural evil, that calls for extraordinary measures outside the usual limits of law enforcement, is no different to the mass hysteria that drove the witch trials and constructed the Third Reich. I don't want to strike a note of aggression, but I've suffered at the hands of this moral panic, and I have a right to defend myself against it.

Finally, children do routinely suffer institutional abuse as a consequence of normal sexual conduct, in my country and in yours. I could provide more specific and recent references than I have (below) but I'm sorry I don't have them at my fingertips. One very recent case near where I live involved a six year old boy excluded from school, exposed to a wave of community hostility and subjected to intervention by child protection agencies following his pulling down a little girl's pants in the playground. I have no doubt he was harmed by his experience, and frankly it makes me nauseous to think of it. I don't want to get into a poor me thing here, but as a child I suffered serious physical and emotional abuse at the hands of adults in authority as a consequence of harmless sexual exploration. I'm irritated by your suggestion that this kind of thing is trivial or nonexistent.

Here are a couple of articles you might find enlightening.


m o l e s t e d
A mother discovers that the legal system's nightmarish "cure" for child sexual abuse can be worse than the disease.

A Question of Abuse
An influential group of therapists is promoting a new scare: children who molest other children. Those who question the murky evidence are said to be in denial. But it is the kids, taken from home and given intense therapy, who might be sufferering the most.


I'm sorry my sincerity has taken a hit. I'm trying to be as open and honest about my situation and beliefs as I can be in the circumstances. Why should your disagreeing with me constitute a mark against my honesty?

I can see where you are coming from. But because it came after a description of his own experience of being a child with those leanings (11) I got the impression he was empathising with kids who find their early explorations put them into an unsympathetic and potentially damaging system.

I do think there's a profound danger in attributing sexual curiosity and desire to young children in the context of an adult with that desire. But I do also think that there is a danger in denying children's sexuality as well. I got the impression he was adding that bit on, as someone who's exprienced growing up with his sexual orientation unacceptable. And pointing out that we have reached a level of unease, as a society, with child sexuality that we respond in an over the top fashion, even when it is two children, rather than an adult and child involved, and even when it is something which in another time might have been considered simple experimentation.

The nature of offences which can get someone (possibly someone as young as 10) onto a sex offenders' register, for life, includes such things as exposing themselves, inappropriate touching, and 'voyeurism'. A boy hiding in a tree and watching his friend's sister get undressed might be considered a criminal on that basis.

A very common sense solution for people who have love feelings for children which are sexual in nature:

http://www.literalmayhem.com/wp-cont...guillotine.gif

You're a callous bastard Merc. Having love feelings and acting them out are two different things. We don't choose what provokes sexual desire.

Fair enough. Having sexual feelings for children is one step away from acting them out. People who have such feelings are in great need of help from the mental health system and should be isolated from children to prevent them from ever having the opportunity and chance of taking the next step.

What I said was that I have never committed any kind of sexual offence, as formally defined by legal statute.

Of course, you'll have to take my word for that. The bottom line is whether or not you can accept that a paedophile can be a good person and speak honestly about his life and experiences.

Sean, in your experience with the pedophilic community, how many would you estimate have biological children of their own? Does being presented with this fundamentally different relationship with a child change anything for those who have them, or does it make no difference?

I can accept that possibility. I cannot, however, accept this one:

Well it was a good question and well framed, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. People need to ask these questions and think about the answers, otherwise the dialog is dominated by people like TheMercenary, and that helps no one.

Sean: I have to disagree with your analysis of the societal nature of the harm. Though, I think that is a definate factor. I do believe it is damaging to children to engage in sexual activity with adults, aside from the socialisation aspects you mention. In terms of moulding that cjhild's sense of their sexual self, it places as much power into the hands of that 'loving adult' as you claim is currently in the hands of society. However lovingly that relationship is forged (if we hypothetically place ourselves into a society which does not deem it intrinsically wrong) the power difference between an adult and a child is vast. The need a child has for adult approval places them in a vulnerable position emotionally and an adult may contribute to forging that child's sense of self in ways they could not predict. The brain does not reach full maturity until around the age of 17. Emotional maturity is an essential component of understanding one's sexual self, and without emotional maturity a person has less understanding of what they want/need, and what they don't want/need. Without the ability to define that for themselves, let alone articulate it, a child engaged in sexual activity may inadvertently be led into acts they are not emotionally ready for without the ability/capacity to change that path (without hurting someone they now feel they wish not to hurt). These are emotional conundrums that are hard enough to deal with when one has a fully developed brain, let alone when it is still forming.

That said, I don't see anything 'evil' in being attracted to children. I do think society's red line on acting on that attraction sexually is well placed tho:P

I think they can do this very well from the inside of a jail cell or a mental institution.

Hypothetically speaking Merc, if someone has never harmed a child and never will harm a child, but feels attracted to them (by whatever quirk of fate), are you really suggesting that by that unsought desire alone they 'deserve' to be locked away for life?

Most of my knowledge of other paedophiles comes from research on published sources, but I think paedophiles are widely acknowledged to be a distinct population to incestuous parents and unlikely to offend against their own children. I think many paedophiles have adult partners and children. Perhaps this gives them easier access to children, perhaps it normalizes their attitudes, who knows. Sexual life histories are seldom completely dictated by primary orientation.

It isn't particularly important to me whether you accept that reality or not, it's a widely acknowledged fact even among professionals working in sexual abuse prevention.

My lifestyle, and ethos, and habits are all focused around not having any kind of sexual contact with children. What I think about such contacts is really academic, and not relevant to my claim to acceptance. Like anyone, I have a right to my opinion.

No, not at all. But they should be prevented from ever having the chance of having close contact with children. You can never tell who will act upon impulses of a deep sexual nature and who will not. I feel the same about men who have fantasies of rape of women. If we can ID these people early we should monitor their behavior. There is no way in hell you or anyone else is going to convince me that a person with sexual feelings towards children, who has acted on them or not, is not a danger to children. Such persons need therapy and careful monitoring. Like anyone, I have a right to my opinion. These people are an inherent danger to society IMHO.

Ok. I think that's a fair view. Though, I think there is often a huge difference between men who have sexual fantasies around rape and those who actually want to rape (lots of people enjoy fantasies of control and dominance, up to and including rape, both in terms of being in control and in terms of being controlled).

So, do you think those people, who have this unchosen desire, but have never actually hurt anyone, should be treated with cruelty and disdain?

I can sympathise with what you're saying DanaC, and I realise it seems intuitive, but much of it won't stand close scrutiny.

It's not something I really want to get into in depth becos it isn't really important to me. However harmless adult/child sex might be in the absence of social factors, there is no such thing as an absence of social factors, and current attitudes are unlikely to change in my lifetime. I'm more interested in not having to hide or be ashamed of my orientation, and in having people understand and accept me. Justifying sex with children is unlikely to contribute to that goal.

That said, sexual conduct between adults and juveniles has been elevated in numerous cultures and is common in many other species. There's no evidence that it is intrinsically harmful. Your power analysis (which incidentally derives from Foucault, who was an advocate of paedophilia) applies equally to the power imbalance between the state and the 'sex offender'. It also ignores the power imbalance which forces the child to attend school, where he is bullied and bored, and church, where he is indoctrinated. If the child's body is so inviolate, why do we allow circumcision? If 'emotional maturity' is necessary to participate in sexual pleasure, does this mean sex between children is harmful?

Its never so simple as you think.

Given all that, I think there are psychological risks for children in being sexually involved with adults. I think the childhood tasks of learning boundaries and identity formation can be disrupted by intense kinds of intimacy. I also think an adult is always in a sense 'in loco parentis' in any relationship with a child, and I think there is a role conflict and an incestuous component to any romantic involvement.

The difference is, I don't see these as absolute and definitive factors, they are simply things that need to be considered. I would certainly say there are good reasons why adult/child sex is forbidden in our culture, but there is no good reason for the kind of anaphylactic hyperbole displayed by TheMercenary. Children have always held an erotic appeal for adults. That appeal isn't limited to paedophiles. We need to be more realistic about it, because the current ideology of the sanctified child, pristine as an alter cloth and fragile as a damselfly, is harming our culture and harming children. It's also turning me and people like me into scapegoats for the feelings that almost everybody has and failures almost everybody is guilty of. Such is the role of the scapegoat.

Fair again. But the issues of fantasy and control between consenting adults is a far different issue of those between a consenting adult and a child, don't you think? At what age do the children have the ability to discriminate between appropriate feelings of sexual desire for others and the pressure that a supposed superior adult figure has in their sphere of influence and understanding, including their current level of psychological development. (Given that children mature at different rates).

You assume that treatment is cruel and filled with disdain. For adults it depends. For children and those whom have sexual feelings for them, yes I have no problem treating them with disdain. I do not believe that you can mix the sexual feelings of adults with those adults have for children and call them equal and equipotent.

That's why I put that in parenthesis, to mark it out as a separate point relating to your point about men who fantasize about rape. I do not see it as in anyway the same. I have already stated very clearly earlier in the discussion that I do not believe children are competant to make such decisions.

Actually no, I don't. I do however think you have treated sean with cruelty and disdain.

This I have difficulty with. Having feelings is not something we choose. It's not a decision made. One can decide not to act upon those feelings. One can decide to act upon them. One can decide to spend one's life in celibacy and one can decide to pray to God every day to free yourself from such desire and temptations. But we really don't get to choose what turns us on. We can hate it in ourselves and do everything we can to try and block it out. But we cannot choose what instinctively provokes desire in us.

Disdain for anyone's unchosen psychosexual make-up just makes no sense to me.

It is only fair at this point to tell you of my bias.

I was a Peds ICU nurse from 1978 to1982. In that time frame I have seen no less than 10 men arrested at the bedside in the hospital for sexual abuse and first degree murder.

I have to admit that I have no understanding and empathy for any man who admits to a sexual attraction to a child. I believe they should be isolated and if they commit a crime of sexual abuse against a child, they should be put to death.

@ sean: I very much do not ignore the power relations between state and child. I have a real problem with the dichotomy between the potential disadvantages which fall onto poorer children if school is not compulsory and the equally worrying potential for harm to children's development which comes from being forced to attend school. I also am an atheist and am not at all comfortable with the power of religious indoctrination, in particular where it relates to psycho-sexual development and gender identities.

I do believe sex between children can be emotionally damaging yes. That doesn;t mean I think it is always emotionally damaging. Just that the risk is greater where emotional maturity has not yet been reached. I had sex when I was too young to have sex. It wasn't abuse. It was probably no worse than most other people's early fumbles. But I think it would have served me better to wait until i was mature enough to take/demand from that situation what I wanted/needed.

I don't think it is at all simple *smiles*. And attitudes towards sex (in every conceivable way, if you'll pardon the pun) are extrenely fluid. The emphasis on penetrative sex as the central act within heterosexual couples can be traced very firmly to the eighteenth century. Attitudes towards sex and sexuality have gone through profound changes accross many generations.

I don't doubt that it is theoretically possible for a child to have a positive sexual experience with an adult. I daresay it has happened and will happen again. Humans have been around for a fuck of a long time and we have tried every combination. I do not see this as something which exists outside of nature, but something which occurs naturally within it.

The thing with the sanctified child is an interesting one. Again that is something that traces its roots to the eighteenth century (actually elements of it started to come up during the previous century, but it really started to take off in the latter half of the 18th). What we have now, and have had at various points since, is a bizarre combination of highly sexualised imagery around girls (young girls fashions and media, the made-up girls in pageants) at the same time as they are sanctified to the point of hysteria.

You'll have to forgive us somewhat Sean. It is something most of us, even if we are willing to try to understand, never truly can. But as you say, that perhaps is not the best way to gain acceptance anyway.

Oh, and Merc is like that with lots of people. It's difficult to see sometimse, but under that harsh, cruel, belligerent and occasionally downright nasty exterior, he's ... well, he's harsh, cruel, belligerent and downright nasty...

I jest. He isn't really:P

I can understand that merc. I can see how that might affect how you approach this subject.

I have many friends who've been abused. It's ridiculously common. I believe the current estimate is that one in nine children will at some point in their childhood suffer some sort of sexual abuse. I think most women, in particular know other women who have talked about such abuse and confided. My best friend at school was abused by her uncle. I was her confidante, and I also have certain instinctive responses to the question of abuse.

But I still cannot fathom disdain for someone's unchosen desire or sexual orientation. Whatever I think of that desire.

Your bias was more obvious before you told me you were a nurse. Why were the men arrested for sexual abuse in an ICU? I can only assume they were there as a consequence of vigilantism, which is something you clearly seem to approve of.

It seems ironic that you should be quoting Nietzsche, becos what you are advocating for paedophiles is to deny them any personal agency or burden of responsibility. These are the very resources paedophiles need to affirm in themselves in order to resolve the conflicts in their lives.

As you say, your lack of empathy is a consequence of your lack of understanding, but before you ease your discomfort by baying for my blood, you have a moral obligation to seek that understanding. I'm an ordinary human being, just like you are. I've probably performed as many honorable, selfless acts as you have, and altho I accept you find it hard to trust me, I don't accept you have the right, or the cause, to hate me.

Merc hates everyone. He's an equal opportunities hater

*Sticks tongue out at Merc*

Sean, is there any chance you would describe for us your first sexual encounter? Ie. were you molested?

vigilantism? Absolutely, note. Are you afraid of that? Is there a reason that you should even bring the subject up? Do you support the sexual exploitation of children? Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that supports or condones the sexual exploitation of children? Let us all know where you stand so we can move forward in this discussion....

I say we just cut the head off of the snake. I have no moral obligation as defined by you or anyone else for anything, you do not have the right or ability to define that. If you have sexual feelings for children you are sick human being that needs help or should you should be eliminated.

I am watching this with interest and thinking, although I am disinclined to debate. I really don't know what I believe, other than everyone is making good points here, and it's a difficult and complex question. I suppose I should do some reading on the subject, but it's not easy to read such things--there are certainly some horrific crimes perpetrated on innocent children.

I think only in the past 20 years or so has the subject even been addressed in our society. Most people, unless they are directly affected, chose not to think about pedophila, It's not a particularly pleasant topic. But how many of us are not affected, really? I think it's widespread; much more prevalent than we realized. Further, I think it's been a part of many societies over many thousands of years, even as cultural institutions, so it's stupid to ignore it or demonize it in an unthinking way. That means we have to deal with it. It is also a very emotional topic (as has been amply shown already in this thread); especially if you are directly affected.

I believe there are some very evil men who have this orientation, but I question an automatic condemnation of every person who has leanings this way to death as a heinous criminal. Once sat on a jury which had to sentence an 18 y.o. man who had fondled some young girls on a playground. It wasn't horrible, as such things go, but it was clear that this was a "first offender" situation. In the end, we chose to give a light sentence, as he was remorseful, agreed to therapy, and had family support. But it was a tough decision. ETA: He wasn't a criminal, he was a man struggling with a compulsion. And, no, the death penalty wasn't an option.

Additionally, through my work, I am involved, in defense of a church in priest/minor sexual abuse cases. There have been quite a few, and most churches are experiencing this. I certainly do not believe that these men were, or at least started out, evil, so that's why I made the remark about dissociating yourself. The only way I can think of for these religious to prey on children in direct contravention to everything they believe would be to completely turn off the mind. I'm no stranger to wrong thinking this way, but that to me, is mental illness.

BTW, in relation to the abuse lawsuits, there are some that are pretty sad; but also some that are pretty ridiculous, in which the plaintiffs blame every screw up in their lives, on a relatively minor incident, which is b.s. (It couldn't possibly be their abusive upbringing, their alcohol or drug abuse, depression, or other causes.)

So, anyway, um. . . thanks for commenting everyone. And I'll continue to be thinking about the topic. Probably forever. ETA. Sexual abuse has touched my life in other, more personal ways, so I have to find a way to deal with it as it comes. My wish is for none of you or yours to have serious emotional consequences from any of this stuff.

Good post Cloud. Right on.

Some good stuff here, I'm telling you folks. :)

but I edited it a bunch, so you might check! bad habit, I suppose.

In the same way that having guns is one step away from killing people?

Ohhhh! She shoots, she scores! lol.

...except, of course, you choose to buy the gun. which maybe puts you a step closer to acting it out.....

Excellent point Monnie. Also, I don;t think that's a sexual orientation, unless you're Urbane :P

Some of what Sean is saying makes a lot of sense to me; and some of it creeps me out. I appreciate the opportunity to hear his viewpoint, however (isn't the 'Net amazing?)

There are all sorts of human rights issues involved, including the rights of everyone affected, and human trafficking, which is a big problem still in the world. Even in trying to fix the problem, there are abuses. But the big issue for me, as in all sexual conduct, is consent. No sex that's not consensual!

Of course, it's all theoretical until someone touches your child.

It's definitely complicated and it's fraught with paradox and contradiction. That's why I get so irritated by people's categorical pronouncements on what is and what isn't. I get particularly annoyed when people confront me with dictums I know to be false through my own experience.

For example, I spent most of my childhood (8 years) at boarding school. The one adult in my life at that time who showed me affection, love, care and attention was, I now know, attracted to young boys. He never engaged in any kind of inappropriate conduct with me, he just looked after me and offered me friendship. In hindsight, there was a mildly erotic aspect to our friendship and some physical affection, but it didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. Since that time, right up til the present day, I've had to listen to people vilify him and speculate about his sexuality, and to be honest, it distresses me. He was like a father for me.

Maybe I was lucky. Maybe he went further with other boys, but if he did, they've never publicised it. The question is, what is the difference between this beneficial relationship between a child an a paedophile and one which extends to physical intimacy? If all these things you say about 'power' and 'emotional maturity' are going to problematize eroticism between an adult and a child, wouldn't they apply regardless of any physical expression? This is certainly the view held by some.

And conversely, what about the situations where sexual conduct is only about pleasure, or curiosity or whatever else outside of an emotional component? What about sex that flies right past a child's radar becos he or she is too young to identify it as anything other than enjoyable touch? The widespread tradition of masturbating young children to induce sleep, found from Europe and Asia to South America, and only ever seen as problematic since the rise of middle class sexual mores in Europe in the 18th century, is a simple sex act that occurs outside of any context of power. It is a simple trade of pleasure seeking and pleasure giving that humans have made for millennia.

And as you suggest, the whole point of the prohibition of these fuzzy borders of sexual conduct has been to reinforce the compulsory, heterosexual, penetrative reproductive 'sex' that western instrumentalism mandates as the sole valid expression of erotic feeling (with recent special allowances made for suburban middle class monogamous gay couples...).

But would young teens be getting comatose at parties and having unprotected intercourse with random strangers if they'd been developed a sense of self respect and competency as sexual beings from childhood? I doubt it. Consider the lunacy around the dismissal of Joycelyn Elders. Doesn't that tell you anything?

I know that sex isn't all sunshine and light. The lot of girls especially has been very harsh in traditional cultures and protection of girls from sexual exploitation is a significant mark of progress in modern culture, but the day it is forbidden to critique social constraints on sexual expression is the day that progress will cease.

That absolutely ties in with my reading from that period. It's amazing how many culturally acceptable forms of sexual expression did become stigmatised during this time. Not just in terms of who we select as partners, but also in terms of how and when we court them and what behaviour is acceptable in that courtship, and what was acceptable and desirable to do with them. A lot of stuff we would consider very sexual and have only recently started talking about again (last few decades) were entirely normal within the courtship rituals of the average labouring-class Briton prior to the big shift in sexual mores during the 18th century.

Thanks for your comments Cloud. I need to retire and consider before I say much else. I'm an unapologetic sexual libertarian. I don't know what if anything this has to do with my orientation, but I do know that it gives people ammunition against me.

I had an idiosyncratic childhood that involved a number of atypical factors, including a medical condition that impacted on my sexual development. As a consequence, I was conscious of my sexual body from an early age. I also had to confront a variety of issues stemming from all this, and I think that has contributed toward my adult philosophy of resisting shaming practices. I'm not sure, but I suspect these kinds of experiences might be quite common among paedophiles.

I'd like to know what in particular creeps you out. I'm not challenging you. I know this stuff can do that. It might sound odd, but I put a lot of effort into not being creepy. For men attracted to women, its clear what's creepy and what's acceptable, but its harder when you're attracted to children. Any kind of interest can seem creepy, even when it's innocent.

I'm less interested in what adults think about me than I am in how children themselves interpret my conduct, but I am open to adult guidance. That's what I've been trying to say here, mostly.

Anyway, thanks.

Hmmmmm.... I have 27 guns and don't really think about killing anyone. Not that I couldn't if needed, but not something I think about.

Unlike a pedophile who wants to have sex with your children.

I'm glad you had a positive experience with this sort of thing--though I'll be honest and say that I don't think it was actually that positive for you overall. There's no way we can know how you would have turned out if you'd never had this relationship with this adult, so the point is moot.

However, as a counter to your anecdote, I have my own experience with this type of situation. Except in my case, the adult in question made me massively uncomfortable every moment I had to be around him. The fact that he didn't touch me sexually didn't make his touch any less abhorrent, and his stated and demonstrated "love" for me put me in a terrible position of resenting him and fearing the loss of his approval. As far as he knew I appreciated his company and loved him back, because I felt I had no choice. I could sense from a young age what his feelings were regardless of the fact that he never acted on them. And while I suppose I can appreciate the fact that he never pushed it farther, that didn't stop the repeated nightmares about being raped by him, which continued for years after I ceased having to be in contact with him.

This man's power and emotional abuse were indeed inherent in his "love" for me. And while you may say your relationship with your mentor had a positive effect on you, the fact remains that there was no way your mentor could have known for sure that was how it would turn out. Maybe it didn't work out as well with other boys, whether he touched them or not. I say if what you're doing has the chance of emotionally scarring a child, you must not do it, even if it falls within the realm of "harmless" from a legal standpoint.

No I was never molested, altho you might be interested in some other comments I've made to Cloud and DanaC. I mentioned a medical condition, which included a mild form of intersex involving genital surgery, and also an endocrine disturbance that was treated with drugs. These kinds of experience often impact on adult sexuality, and I am currently researching in that area. I think there is probably a lot more counseling available for children like me these days.

Besides this, I had some difficult experiences in my childhood, which I've already mentioned. Some violence and some other kinds of abuse, and also some paradoxes. For one, altho I wasn't sexually precocious (quite the opposite, I had a very late puberty) I really loved girls when I was a young boy, and I also had a lot of opportunities for sex play. This was always consensual and enjoyable, and in many ways my sex life up until age ten was as good as it's ever been.

I don't subscribe to the abused/abuser theory, but I'm open to the possibility that my childhood has influenced the way I feel now. I'm resistant to simplistic pathologizing tho.

:rolleyes:

I think a large part of one of the problems with this topic -and it extends outside of this topic also- is that some people wish to live in denial of the sexuality of children. Sure, they'll tell funny stories of theri 4yo playing with his willy in the supermarket. But they refuse to think of it as sexual. Some little kids play with their genitals. A lot. Enough that they have to be getting something out of it. It is sexual.

But just because they know it feels good, doesn't mean they know what it's for. And doesn't make it OK to have sex with them. But they will have sex with each other, and play with each others genitals. And they won't necessarily know it's wrong. They can be sexual beings. It's still not OK for adults to have sex with them. They may even flirt with and invite the adults. It's still not OK -they're not able to give informed consent. If they can't give consent, who can? Their parents. Well, who wants to ask the parents of the child and what parents wants to hear that question>

So we have a law. with an arbitrary age limit, but one that will definitely outlaw all sex with physically immature juveniles. A law that pretty much states that children are not for sex. (good!) Even with other children (good!) So let's hang them all! (wait... my 15yo got drunk and fucked the class slapper at a party and he has to die...? your and my nine-year-olds decided to play doctor on their sleepover.......)

Why is this denial of children's sexuality a problem?

(1) the laws in place to prevent adults messing with children are also applied to children messing with children. And they are -as they should be for adults- pretty harsh laws. But 11yo Buckie knows it feels good when he bullies his little sister into giving him her candy. And he knows if feels good when he plays with his todger. And he knows it feels good when his momma rubs his back. And he knows it feels good when he bullies his sister into rubbing his dick. We adults can see what's wrong with this picture and how to define the degrees of badness here, but can little Buckie? And does he deserve a lifelong punishment for that? or execution?

(2) When presented with evidence of something we don't believe in, we try hard to find some other cause. If our children are behaving in a sexual manner, it must be the fault of an adult somewhere. Must be pedophiles. Strike 1. Pedophiles: Wait... we haven't even come out of the closet yet and already you're stoning us...... Sean here has presented an argument that you can have these leanings and not act on them. How often do you think he gets that chance? He'd stand a better chance of a fair hearing if he was born black into the heart of a KKK family

(3) Pedophiles don't deny the sexuality of children. They are the people who screamed "The emporer is naked". The fact that they run a rival tailoring outfit that would run him up a suit in a jiffy given the go-ahead by the govermnment doesn't work in their favor.

I wouldn't invite Sean to babysit my children. But if he became a regular dwellar, I'd probably stop by one one of our road trips, if invited. With the children. And the hubby. I think he's a Brit, though, so it ain't happening soon with airfares the way they are! :lol:

sorry if this seems disjointed and not in synch with the convo... it's been a long time in the verbalization and it still ain't perfect, but Ineed sleep

Fucking awesome post monnie.

I'm inclined to agree with you Clodfobble. I think the strength in this relationship was that it was focused outward, on things we both enjoyed doing, and I always experienced his interest as optional and not oppressive. He also stood up for me against other adults on more than one occasion, at some cost to himself, which I think reflected the fact that it was a friendship that was acknowledged by others, and not just something 'between us'.

But I agree with you that the Pygmalion situation, 'grooming' in other words, even where nothing specifically sexual is intended, is an abuse of the adult's status and power.

As I've said, I've sought out friendship with kids on occasions, and possibly made myself vulnerable to accusations of this kind. In fact, I'm not even going to deny that I've been guilty of being over affectionate, but I've also tried very hard to monitor my conduct, and I've sought advice and input from other adults, including parents.

I think over time I've grown more skilled at stepping back when I need to, and I think this is part of a learning process. No one was going to help me with any of this, I've had to figure it all out for myself. I could feel bitter that no constructive help is available, but I don't, I just feel determined not to hurt anybody and determined to find happiness.

I've always believed, and always will believe that my interest in kids can be a force for good, and that I'm capable of expressing my feelings with care, sensitivity and restraint. If TheMercenary disagrees and wants to come after me with his 27 guns, let him. I'm no pussy either.

thanks. I'll probably be arrested by the parent police tomorrow. Remember the incest topic? (that was this forum, right?) :lol:

Just watch out for anyone with a rope in their hands and half a dozen mates :P

Wait wait wait, i missed this until sean quoted it.

Doesn't the whole task of being a parent fall into the category of having "a chance of emotionally scarring a child"? i have emotional scars from my parents and they had no intent to harm me (mostly) -they just wanted to harm each other and we got int the crossfire.

:D you mean like this... This Be The Verse?

But I think there's an important point I should make. Altho I do observe the legal boundaries, they aren't my primary guide.

I don't consider a kind of conduct with children to be ok just becos it's not illegal. My standards are more rigorous than that, and one of the things I do to develop those standards is have conversations like this one.

It may come as a shock, but I am honestly committed to the welfare of children. Also, I doubt I'm the only paedophile in history who's been so moved ... the name Robert Baden-Powell springs to mind.

Thanks monster. Good points.

And I can live without babysitting your kids, altho I am pretty good at it. Also, I'm a lot further away than Britain.

It's a question of forethought. I would suggest to most parents that, yes, harming the other parent is likely to have negative repurcussions on the children, and they should avoid doing it. Obviously there will be times when we all inadvertently scar our children, but we make the best effort we can to stop and consider each choice we make. What's the risk, and how easy is it to avoid that risk? In the case of a pedophile befriending and loving a child (albeit in a nonsexual way,) I'd say the risk is high enough, and avoiding the situation entirely is possible in most cases.

I think you overestimate most people's thinking abilities. You are smarter than the average bear. Most people are the average bear.

How many people report emotional scars from their parents? And how many from pedophiles? and how many were raped by their parents step-parents compared to by pedophile non-family members

Most Parents are a danger to their children, it's a wonder so many of us make it through to the other side.

That's true Clodfobble, but let me say something else. This person was an accomplished mountaineer. Although I also came from a mountain background, he is the person who introduced me to technical alpine climbing. This pursuit, more than any other single thing, gave me the self discipline and confidence to overcome what have at times been daunting odds. There's much more to this, but I can't go into it here.

what mountains am i talking about? these...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...k1600x1200.jpg
http://www.cleangreen.co.nz/gallery1...20Aspiring.jpg

I'm sorry you had this experience, and I certainly have no wish to trivialize it. It sounds like this man caused you real harm, and I'd contend that your experience was quite different from mine.

I have to say, I feel a strong sense of solidarity with most paedophiles, even those who are guilty of sexual offences and less obvious errors of judgement. That sympathy doesn't extend to sadists and child abusers.

I feel desperately sad for children that suffer through the wrong actions of paedophiles, and when I read a story in the paper that makes me think "there but for the Grace of God", it makes me just as sad. One reason I'm engaged in this conversation is because I want to make it possible for people like me to feel less alone and more able to meet their emotional needs without harming kids.

It must be obvious to most of you here that there's more to this than draconian punishments.

I think you've given some of us a lot to think about sean.

So, do you still go mountain climbing?

:D

From sean's post #104
Question: At what age did you become sexually active?