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

Yeah, I agreed with that, though my absolute meant something a little different. I still can't think of a better choice except "draconian" though that also doesn't sound accurate.In any case I hope you understand I wasn't trying to put down your post. Even where I disagreed personally, and could be fuel for a future debate, I understood and had no problem with the logic you were employing. That's certainly what this study sort of suggests, though couldn't there also be cases of people that are not aware of the harm that has been caused to them? That is they were harmed in some way, but have disassociated that from the action that caused it?In that case it seems there may still be some realm where there could be a clinical diagnosis which disagrees with personal feeling, yet be more accurate. And in those cases I would suggest that another measure for the existence of harm is identifiable and quantifiable conditions, linked to a proven event.

---

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

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}}}

Oh wait, I didn't mean to take it to repressed memories, which I more than agree is on definite shaky ground.It is more about cases where people do not recognize they have a problem or condition, though clinically it is diagnosable, or that they do not connect it with a sexual trauma because of its different nature (thus they fail to make a connection that an outside observer might).That second one is stickier of course, but the first does occur. Yeah, this is a good example of a "problem" which could fall in either category above, as well as raising the question of if it is a problem at all, or how one can quantify it.There are of course many things that might cause someone to be less likely to make male friends, beyond trauma, and who is to say that is a "harm" rather than a "characteristic"? Personally I have no understanding of exoneration based on pathology. That merely describes why a person may act the way they do, and not whether society needs protection from an individual. So, I agree.

---

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

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

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}}}

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.

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

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