GirlChat #453610

Start A New Topic!  Date Index  Thread Index

how vulnerable are children to 'methods'?

Posted by madpenguin on 2008-October-14 05:41:21 EDT, Tuesday
  Views: 1    Likes: 0     
I haven't seen this discussed here before, but it seems to me that antis have an unstated fear that children are very vulnerable to methods; that any pedophile that uses certain methods can bypass all of their 'immature defenses' and 'get into their pants.'

In case you don't know what I mean by a 'method', it's like a canned pick-up line but it encompasses your appearance entirely. As in, what clothes you wear, what tone/speed you talk, how you move, how dominant/submissive you are, how emotional/rational you are, where you steer the conversation, what kind of rhetoric you use, how you use touch, etc.
The point is that it's all a facade, put on for the express purpose of attracting a sex partner.

Most women have some experience with men who will say anything to have sex with them, and so they throw 'shit tests' to try to get the man out of character, to break through the method and see if their personality is actually different from how they're acting. But children (or young adults) generally don't have such experience. So the assumption is that children will easily be swept off their feet (and into the sack) by pedophiles who use certain methods.

I think we can agree that using a method is dishonest if not immoral, but how much should their use on children be prevented? And how vulnerable are children to methods, compared to adults? If significantly more so, then would this fact make it unacceptable for an adult to have a sexual relationship with a child? It would be nearly impossible to prove that the adult in question was or was not using a method, so those situations alone could not be regulated. Wouldn't using a method have an impact on the capability of one to consent?

I expect someone to reply with a metaphor to driving, where being allowed to drive younger means you get experience younger and thus become a better driver younger. Children could be educated, as part of sex education, on how some people purposely use facades in order to convince potential mates that they are a better person than they actually are. But how young of a child could understand this well enough to use critical thinking and consider this possibility when confronted with it in reality? I'd think it at least requires one to feel empathy, in order to understand it; that comes around age 7, IIRC.

Perhaps the harm is, like rape, not caused by the act itself, but by one's interpretation of it. If one believes or is told by another that they were 'tricked', then they are likely to feel foolish. Actually, this brings up another point: I was originally thinking of the situation a certain way and was going to say that "he conned sex out of her" as if he gained something and she gained nothing, if not lost something. But that's not true; she likely gained some sexual experience and its associated pleasure, and experience interacting with men who use methods. If she regrets her actions she may act differently in the future (e.g. throwing shit tests.) But a very negative view of what happened to her may lead to her feeling ashamed or traumatized. This leads to a set of problems I'd rather discuss in a separate thread.

Quid pro quo is another issue that's related but I'd rather not go into in this thread. So the questions remain: how much more vulnerable to methods are children, related to adults? And how much of a real and perceived problem is this (perceived according to us, and to antis)? How much do methods impact consent?

This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses