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

Firstly, you're right, as others have said, about the unfortunate occurence of a public outcry influencing scientific conclusions. Indeed these researchers were very brave to have gone ahead and published their results in the first place.That said I'm not comfortable with their almost blanket assertion that a pre-adolescent can consent to sexual activity. Imagine for a moment that you have two children, each with a parent. How do you tell the difference between the child who gave meaningful consent to a potentially harmful activity, and the child who felt he had no choice but to consent because of the power and authority inherent to the position of parent?The conclusion of the researchers appears to be "you wait till they're old enough for college and then you ask them", which is useless as a legal, practical rubric for prosecuting sexual abuse.The question is not whether or not a child can give meaningful consent; the question is how you tell the difference. Since there appears to be no way, we must continue to operate from an assumption that a child cannot consent.I actually find it highly disingenuous that the researchers equate getting research consent from a minor with getting sexual consent from a minor.Other than that I'm not sure what other comments to make because I don't quite understand your position. Does childhood sexual abuse cause devastating long-term harm to every single one of it's victims? I don't recall that being anybody's position, especially since the definition of CSA includes acts that ultimately probably aren't all that traumatic. But it doesn't appear to be under dispute that raping a child causes immediate harm to the child.It's beginning to look to me that this study has been blown out of proportion not only by its detractors but by its supporters as well. A blanket proof that a child can consent to sex, and will not be harmed by the experience, this is not.

Before we continue you need to understand that I'm going to reference, and dispute, positions that you haven't taken, Holmes. Not everything I ever post about is about you, ok?When I make reference to a position, as in

quote:

---

A blanket proof that a child can consent to sex, and will not be harmed by the experience, this is not.

---

or

quote:

---

The question is not whether or not a child can give meaningful consent; the question is how you tell the difference.

---

you need to understand that I'm not attributing these positions to you. Which should have been obvious since I didn't attribute them to you. Or reply to any of your posts. Sometimes it's necessary for me to establish my position, or introduce it, within a context of the debate that is necessarily larger than just your position.Before we continue this debate I need to know that you're going to be able to keep your massive ego in check. Your post doesn't give me the indication that you're going to be able to, honestly. If you cannot then the debate is at an end before its even begun. But this is absolutely false, since the only harm they looked at was the kind of harm that would persist to college. (The "using college samples" part of the title.) The study did not contend that even "consensual" adult-child sexual relationships were entirely without harm, only that the harm was not as pervasive, intense, and gender-neutral as commonly believed.Wholly without merit? You're blowing the study way, way out of proportion. They cannot consent in any distinguishable way. I don't see where the researchers dispute that. The fact that a child might be able to consent is meaningless if that consent can't be substantiated by anybody else. Sure. Unfortunately they had to wait until college, apparently, for any of the rest of us to be sure. I have no issues with the study, or with any excerpt. What I take issue with is your outlandish misinterpretations of it.

Well, here's how you'll know. When I'm responding to things that you've said, I'll quote you. When I'm responding to other positions relevant to the context so that people can see where I kind of "fit in", I won't. Yes, I did. Your point? Their sample was a self-selected group of college-aged individuals. I also failed to point out that studies show that the yearly rainfall in Texas for 2004 was below average. What makes these two things similar is that neither one of them was relevant to my arguments.If you're not interested or capable of following along with my arguments, and actually reading my posts, it's ok for you to say so. I certainly extend you the same courtesy. I guess I don't understand what you're on about. The study claims that a child can give simple consent. I think I've made a pretty good case that, while that might be true, it's meaningless. A child might be able to give simple consent but we can't tell the difference between genuine simple consent and coerced simple "consent", so a child's simple consent is worthless.Did you have anything specific to that point? I don't recall mentioning "informed consent" in my post. I guess I don't. I've only ever referred to simple consent in my posts. Informed consent is irrelevant to the arguments I've presented. Well, indeed I did acknowledge that. I'm curious when you plan to start actually reading my posts. Sigh... would that this were true.

These categories are inaccurate. Coercing consent is still rape.

You keep claiming that I'm addressing 2 or 3, but you don't seem to see that it's literally the knowledge of harm that I'm trying to get to, here.I'll sum up because I've already defended this point in other threads (and I ask you to reply meaningfully to those posts and not this one): the methodology of the study doesn't provide for a basis to conclude no harm, or that we can know that a child is consenting meaninfully.

Influence is not coercion. Let me check - yup. Influence is still not coercion.

No, I don't. You can influence someone's decision, but so long as they're not coerced, they're still free and willing. Influence doesn't remove your free will.Coercive sex is always rape. Seduction is influence, and therefore merely freely, willing participation.

No, just two. Coerced sex and non-coerced sex.That's two levels. You can count them.