Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science vs Morality: 1998 Rind Study Controversy (evidence of harm/abuse/consent)
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 39 (186666)
02-18-2005 11:59 PM


Coragyps wrote...
I thought that it was very interesting, and that yes, the hoorah surrounding the paper is a threat to science and the persuit of knowledge. And I appreciate the amount of work it took to put that all together, Holmes.
Ditto...

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 39 (234978)
08-20-2005 4:48 AM


Bump for crash
This has been bumped for crash, though of course new readers may respond.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 39 (234984)
08-20-2005 9:11 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 11:40 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 39 (234996)
08-20-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
08-20-2005 9:11 AM


I have no clue what to say. The turnaround time between when you could have started reading all of this (assuming you read it sometime after I posted the bump), to reaching your conclusion, can only lead me to believe you did not read everything.
And when I say everything, I mean the links. The OP itself details an incident as well as providing what the study found, in somewhat brief sketches. In order to comment on the study's findings (actually studies' findings) you'd have had to read them. Did you? Your reply, beyond its speed, seems to suggest no.
I have written three replies so far and nothing satisfies me, because I am dealing with no actual response to the papers and their findings.
I'm not comfortable with their almost blanket assertion
This may be your feeling, but they made nothing close to a blanket assertion.
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.
Here you are combining a couple different issues (legal, scientific, forensic) and an offensive strawman in order to obfuscate and so avoid having to address the conclusions of the study, which would affect the legal. In other words you are using a circular argument to reject dealing with studies that would impact your position (at the very least regarding knowledge of sex/harm).
Frankly I don't buy your legal argument, but that is so off subject here I'm not going to start to deal with it here.
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.
What does this ramble have to do with my position or the study I posted? You seem to be talking to yourself.
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.
Which states quite clearly that you didn't even bother to read my post. That is in fact what I did say. That is indeed what Rind said. There were people on both ends that made much more of the study than it actually said.
A blanket proof that a child can consent to sex, and will not be harmed by the experience, this is not.
Which is to say that you didn't read the study or my post, that is without removing your filter of expectations, and so conclude with some sort of smug comment on a strawman.
What the study did show is that the concept of "informed consent" is useless to predict harm, meaning that it is not a causative factor in harm stemming from sexual activity. And that "simple consent" helps predict harm and so useful as a scientific tool for understanding/building causative models of harm from sex, and if legal and moral rules are based on harm (rather than other issues) that would be more useful.
Thus all arguments regarding laws or moral rules for sexual activity with children, which are said to be based on harm, since kids "cannot consent", are shown to be wholly without merit. Or put another way, no one can use the argument, that kids are harmed and so need protection because they cannot consent to sex.
Actually it does contain absolute proof that some kids feel they have consented and were not harmed by the experience. That is a matter of fact which makes up the data. The question is how that gets applied to conclusions regarding if/how sex may harm children, which is as I have explained above.
The result is discussion of "consent" is relatively pointless in relation to harm, unless we want to use simple consent.
I'm not planning on responding to any more replies by you in this thread unless they contain actual excerpts of the study you are dealing with, and explanations of why you have issues with said excerpt.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 9:11 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 1:01 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 39 (235003)
08-20-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
08-20-2005 11:40 AM


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.
Thus all arguments regarding laws or moral rules for sexual activity with children, which are said to be based on harm, since kids "cannot consent", are shown to be wholly without merit.
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.
Or put another way, no one can use the argument, that kids are harmed and so need protection because they cannot consent to sex.
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.
Actually it does contain absolute proof that some kids feel they have consented and were not harmed by the experience.
Sure. Unfortunately they had to wait until college, apparently, for any of the rest of us to be sure.
I'm not planning on responding to any more replies by you in this thread unless they contain actual excerpts of the study you are dealing with, and explanations of why you have issues with said excerpt.
I have no issues with the study, or with any excerpt. What I take issue with is your outlandish misinterpretations of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 11:40 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 1:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 39 (235004)
08-20-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-13-2005 6:53 PM


willingness, seduction and rape
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}:
Rape is forced sex with no deference given to {will\won't} of the victim.
Seduction is more inclusive than just consent, as it includes consent being coerced from the intended victim.
Willing (here) would imply knowledge of the behavior and happy participation.
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2005 6:53 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 2:12 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 3:02 PM RAZD has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 39 (235006)
08-20-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
08-20-2005 1:01 PM


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?
Well this does explain some of what you said. I think its a bit odd for you to expect me to know you are introducing something new, when this whole subject (and specifically this thread) was mentioned in a specific context.
Perhaps you should deal with the main subject before moving on to other topics?
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.
I have no idea what was egotistical in my post to you. And while I fully admit I can be arrogant, it's a bit odd to hear a "massive ego" charge coming from a guy that routinely gloats about how brilliant he is, and just pretended he spoke for everyone at EvC.
If you want me to leave out insulting commentary, I will strive to remove all such articles. They are bad form. But then do me the favor and play likewise.
But this is absolutely false, since the only harm they looked at was the kind of harm that would persist to college.
Did you read their discussion on this topic? How about the supporting work? You also fail to point out that there were indications of positive feelings/benefits from such encounters associated with simple consent. The idea that the results showed that damage was simply less bad is inaccurate and indeed one of the flawed mischaracterizations made by those trying to downplay the results.
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.
This makes no sense. It is a circular argument. You say kids can't consent, or must be presumed unable to consent because (you assert) there is absolutely no way to tell when a kid consents. There is a study showing that for those that had given consent there was little to no harm, and indeed some positive associations. And it further shows that ASSUMING NONCONSENT is statistically meaningless disproving "informed consent" (which is what one uses by assuming nonconsent) as having any causative role in harm.
It seems you have two issues to deal with. The first is with what that lack of correlation means to claims that harm stems from lack of informed consent. The second is with proving there is no way to understand whether a child "simply" consents.
And that second thing is really not about harm, which is what I was talking about, and about practical methods for lawmaking.
What I take issue with is your outlandish misinterpretations of it.
That's funny. I have not said anything they have not said. And in fact I did have some criticisms of their study, so I'm not blowing it up into anything more than it is. If anything I have downplayed its results.
That you do not seem to understand what significance that lack of correlation using "informed consent" has for your position, despite their discussion on it, is a problem that you are going to have to work out for yourself. It is a very significant find regarding knowledge with respect to harm.
I might also add that this is the best state of knowledge on harm, and includes all that other supporting material which came out before and after the study. It wholly undercuts the hysteria surrounding the subject, which I don't seem to see you acknowledging. And it also shows that your earlier claim regarding what the APAs say on this subject, is somewhat less than worthwhile.
In any case, this will actually be the last post I will deal with from you, that does not address actual material from the study with specific commentary. If you want to develop arguments regarding legal or moral issues related to child sex, you really should open up another thread. This is supposed to be about our state of knowledge regarding if/how children may be harmed by sex.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 1:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 08-20-2005 2:16 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 3:00 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 39 (235009)
08-20-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
08-20-2005 1:16 PM


Re: willingness, seduction and rape
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}:
Thanks for the compliments. I don't want to address your post in full here, because it is moving on to the next part of the discussion. As I set out in some other thread it seems to me that this subject has three completely independant parts:
1) Knowledge or validation of harm from sexual activity (really for children and adult, but in this specific issue it is kids)
2) Moral rules and possible social sanctions
3) Laws and practical methods for handling such cases
This is supposed to be about evaluating number 1.
I did find your arguments (which seemed to focus on 3) interesting and I agree that human interaction is able to be characterized as: Force, Coercive/Deceptive, and Willing.
I think this specific issue ends up (on the legal and moral side) involving much more than this however. I think one of the biggest mistakes is that society has swallowed the "harm" malarky pitched a little over 100 years ago, and so that has become the center of debate. I believe that's why so many people are desperate to cling to the idea that data must or should show harm of some kind. This despite historical fact that whole cultures survived just fine with sex at any and all different ages.
I mean really the whole thing came at the exact same time (actually slightly later) as homosexuality and masturbation got demonized as harmful. And indeed it only came when people wanted to end prostitution and decided one good place to start was child prostitution. This is historical record.
I think there are adequate reasons for morals and laws proscribing such activities to some degree, without any appeal to harm whatsoever... though obviously outright rape is rape.
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.
I disagree with both of these as they are a bit too absolute in nature, though I understand the logic you were using when making these categories as well as why they must be all or nothing (rather than using the age differential).
You will likely come into major problems with that second point. I have known people that were mentally "retarded" as well as legally mentally "unfit". Them and their relatives would likely start a ruckus. They need physical love just like the rest and it would be pretty cruel to destroy that part of their life.
Okay I said way to much already.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2005 1:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 3:06 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2005 1:00 AM Silent H has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 39 (235010)
08-20-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
08-20-2005 1:50 PM


clarification
quote:
And that second thing is really not about harm, which is what I was talking about, and about practical methods for lawmaking.
Just to make sure that people are aware (and correct me if I am wrong): the authors of the study themselves take great pains to avoid any comments or conclusions about the moral and legal issues. They very explicitly state that they are dealing solely with the scientific (and, hence, the mental health) issues.
Now we may, of course, use the information in the study to try to come to informed opinions as to the moral and legal implications, but the authors explicitly state that this is outside the scope of their work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 1:50 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 39 (235013)
08-20-2005 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
08-20-2005 1:50 PM


I think its a bit odd for you to expect me to know you are introducing something new, when this whole subject (and specifically this thread) was mentioned in a specific context.
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.
Did you read their discussion on this topic? How about the supporting work?
Yes, I did. Your point? Their sample was a self-selected group of college-aged individuals.
You also fail to point out that there were indications of positive feelings/benefits from such encounters associated with simple consent.
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.
And it further shows that ASSUMING NONCONSENT is statistically meaningless disproving "informed consent" (which is what one uses by assuming nonconsent) as having any causative role in harm.
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.
That you do not seem to understand what significance that lack of correlation using "informed consent" has for your position, despite their discussion on it, is a problem that you are going to have to work out for yourself. It is a very significant find regarding knowledge with respect to harm.
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.
It wholly undercuts the hysteria surrounding the subject, which I don't seem to see you acknowledging.
Well, indeed I did acknowledge that. I'm curious when you plan to start actually reading my posts.
In any case, this will actually be the last post I will deal with from you
Sigh... would that this were true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 1:50 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 39 (235014)
08-20-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
08-20-2005 1:16 PM


Re: willingness, seduction and rape
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}:
Rape is forced sex with no deference given to {will\won't} of the victim.
Seduction is more inclusive than just consent, as it includes consent being coerced from the intended victim.
Willing (here) would imply knowledge of the behavior and happy participation.
These categories are inaccurate. Coercing consent is still rape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2005 1:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2005 12:33 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 39 (235015)
08-20-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
08-20-2005 2:12 PM


Re: willingness, seduction and rape
This is supposed to be about evaluating number 1.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 2:12 PM Silent H has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 39 (235154)
08-20-2005 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-13-2005 6:53 PM


it's just too long...
The initial post is just too long for me since I am not acutely interested in or surprised that science is not particular pure, especially in the area of psychology but other areas of science as well.
I guess I already consider science as compromised and non-objective in many fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2005 6:53 PM Silent H has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 39 (235171)
08-21-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
08-20-2005 3:02 PM


Re: willingness, seduction and rape
These categories are inaccurate. Coercing consent is still rape.
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 3:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2005 8:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 39 (235173)
08-21-2005 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
08-20-2005 2:12 PM


Re: willingness, seduction and rape
holmes, msg 23 writes:
This is supposed to be about evaluating number 1.
I did find your arguments (which seemed to focus on 3) interesting and I agree that human interaction is able to be characterized as: Force, Coercive/Deceptive, and Willing.
Thanks. I'll try to concentrate on (1).
I disagree with both of these as they are a bit too absolute in nature, though I understand the logic you were using when making these categories as well as why they must be all or nothing (rather than using the age differential).
Well, I did close by saying "And of course ALL absolutes are false."
You will likely come into major problems with that second point. I have known people that were mentally "retarded" as well as legally mentally "unfit".
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 2:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 08-21-2005 4:37 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024