Science vs Morality: 1998 Rind Study Controversy (evidence of harm/abuse/consent)

Excellent post Holmes, full of moral dilemmas and the conflict between social laws and behaviors.I find the facts of the case on the persecution of the results to be quite disturbing, as you can inject any scientific finding into the mix and get the same results. This is not unlike legislating that pi = 3.000, completely undeterred by facts.That is one aspect of this matter.The other involves the specific issue addressed in the study.One of the points that I think is vital in any discussion on this topic is to distinguish between {willing}, {seduction} and {rape} as well as to distinguish between {child} and {adolescent}: At least one person in any sexual encounter is willing ... but the best situation is when all (one or more) people are willing.I have no problem with having laws on the books that make

• having sex with any child who is sexually immature illegal regardless of the {willingness\unwillingness} of the child.
• having sex with any individual who is mentally {immature\unfit} -- unable to meet legal "informed consent" standards -- regardless of the {willingness\unwillingness} of the individual.
• rape of any individual illegal, regardless of the age or mental ability of the victim.

I do have problems with laws that make it okay for two adolescent children under the age of consent to have mutually willing sex, but not okay if one of them crosses that age barrier: that is an artificial construct.The issue becomes morally muddy for me when we get to the issue of seduction, particularly with an older individual able to {flash} the younger with gifts and (at least the appearance of) personal interest. In these cases (and as long as the younger individual is sexually mature and mentally able to make "informed consent" decisions) the seduced partner may be deceived into participating rather than be overtly willing.In these cases the victim is {negatively impacted\harmed\hurt} by the deception rather than the sex or forced participation (in the case of rape).And in these cases if the perpetuator could be shown to have a pattern of behavior of seducing other people, then I have no problem with having a law on the books that makes that illegal.Morally speaking I have no objection to a 60+ year old marrying a {sexually mature person able to make "informed consent" decisions} regardless of their age.In many countries it is perfectly acceptable for adolescents to get married (if not in fact encouraged for young women ... it is one way to eliminate unwed teen pregnancy ... and there is usually no limit on the age of the husband).Note that not that long ago all rapes were considered the fault of the woman, that they must have "asked" to be raped in some way by their behavior or perceived behavior (dressing like a "tart"). As far as child sex goes it seems that the opposite is always assumed.And of course ALL absolutes are false.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

That's easy then. All casual sex is rape.All groupies dazzled by the glamor of being with rock stars were raped.The point of seduction is to cause willingness where it did not exist before, the level of actual coercion is variable. This is the muddy middle between rape and willingness.Trying to force it into one or the other doesn't work.This relates to the perceived harm issue as well: a seduced person ends up having willing sex, not forced. If a seduced person has fond memories of the sexual relationship but mixed feelings about the aftermath (assuming teh seduction was the end-all be-all of the relationship instead of the beginning of a lasting one) then what is disturbing to the person is NOT the sex.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thanks. I'll try to concentrate on (1). Well, I did close by saying "And of course ALL absolutes are false." Yes. The real issue here is the level of the relationship: is it just casual one-nighters, quicky affairs, long term affairs or {marriage\contract} commitments? Somehow I have trouble with the concept of any long term relationship being one of pure sexual abuse. Spouse abuse is {physical\mental\sexual} eh?The legal issue should only address the {one-nighter\quicky affair} and stay out of the rest (different issue addressed on several other threads, insert {{ADMIN -- DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS PORTION}} line ...)

---

How do we measure the existence of harm?By whether the {apparent victim} feels harmed.This allows for a large variety of responses based on the mental state of the {AV}'s in question to a similar level of {abuse}. Those with a high degree of confidence and personal {awareness\self-respect} will have little effect while those with low levels will have more.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

That is actually where I started, then reduced it down to personal perception. This gets into the repressed childhood memories issue and some definite shaky ground.And how do you measure something as murky as {less likely to make male friends after being sexually molested by an older male}?And if the victim becomes pathological in later life, does the fact of victimhood exonerate them? Say they end up like the "BTK" killer: is this behavior (only) due to having been a victim? I think that would be a stretch.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

so you agree that seduction is a middle ground between rape and freely willing participation.thanks.ps -- notice I originally said {includes} not {is only}

like just being less impressed with male ego

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sorry but you are using three, if not four, levels of distinction regardless.