Re: Reply

Perhaps it is a commmon belief and some children indeed do enjoy sexual contact but you used the words 'abuse industry' to imply that they fabricate it all when clearly they do not. How do you know the numbers involved in each case - enjoy or abused?

Actually, no. That's how you interpreted it. The term 'abuse industry' refers broadly to those who stand to benefit in some way by the moral panic surrounding child sexual abuse, the industry surrounding which generates millions of dollars, creates jobs, etc.

In your part of the world it might but not here in the UK since I have not seen such a term used to describe those involved. It seems more like a term invented by the paedophile activists than anything else, to accord with what they believe.

I don't believe many of these people knowingly create harm (although I'm sure some do); I think mostly they are doing it unwittingly. However, I do think many--maybe even most--of them deliberately exaggerate the problem in many ways, which does contribute to the iatrogenic side of harm creation.

Your belief again. Provide some evidence or stop repeating what you have been told.

That is your belief and not much evidence apart from Rind (which has been attacked widely for errors) to support your view.

Actually there are other sources that support it; the C.K. Li study I mentioned is a very good, no-nonsense study. So good, in fact, that it is carried by Prometheus Books, who specialize in critical thinking, atheism, anti-mysticism and the like. By the way, the blurb for that is a little misleading. The studies in the book consist of more than just interviews with pedophiles.

Also, I and my non-MAP friend (who works in the medical profession) addressed the "errors" leveled against it, most of which were utter bullshit. The beauty of a meta-analysis is that it covers so much territory, thus minimizing the chance of error. I will look up that section in the archives over at ID and repost it here if I can find it.

Fine.

it happens in many areas pertaining to children but sexuality IS different. Your supposition is also incorrect - 'the child grows to understand how terribly taboo it is' - some might see it as abuse and others not but the effects of these types of relationships alone can affect them regardless of how they might view their experiences, e.g. forming sexual and psychological attachments to adults. Did you read some of the quotes I have posted from a victim? She was particularly articulate and understands her experiences well which is often not the case.

How is sex fundamentally different from other experiences in which the same pressures are applicable? And how do children, who do not have enough experience to have developed a means of discerning moral transgressions or categorizing experiences, understand that it is inherently different? Break it down for me, without resorting to special pleading or mystical bullshit. And yes, I read the quotes you posted. I even reposted them. They do not contradict my position, as I explained.

Sorry can't be bothered. I am not getting into explaining things to you for which you can equally find answers by doing your own research into such things. You choose to believe the evidence provided on the paedophile side of the debate.

Why can't you accept that they all might have been?

Because I understand biology, and I understand how the human mind works with regard to its formation of schemas, and I understand the need to avoid cognitive dissonance, and a good many other things. I also know from my own experience the mental gymnastics we can go through to try to conform to the cultural paradigm, which makes perfect sense given our need to belong.

Great. Apply it more often.

You are still being condescending because you want to believe your version of events over theirs.

Oh, so I should just swallow anything that people say with regard to sexual abuse, huh? Because questioning their take on reality is condescending. What-the-fuck-ever. If that's so, then you are just as condescending to me for questioning my position. Or maybe you just happen to think I'm wrong. Hmm, there's a thought: believing someone might be mistaken isn't inherently condescending. I've never thought of that! Look, I don't question the authenticity of their emotions and memory of the experience (although I know some people do lie about this because they know how far they can get with it); what I question is their memory of the events themselves, and especially the emotions they may attach to those experiences after the fact.

Memory can play tricks but as I commented about at length much earlier, emotional trauma can make the memories remain quite clear. I have no difficulty in accurately remembering the events in my past and the recollection has not altered over time. I would presume this can happen for mant others too. Numbers again.

From Campbell's The Improbable Machine:

"The serial computer is most at home in a world very unlike our own, a world of well-defined puzzles having clear solutions, exhaustive descriptions, lists, explicit rules, literal meanings, perfect information. The world in which the brain evolved is a great deal more untidy and less circumscribed, full of ambiguity, deceit, problems that sprawl in ungainly fashion and have no firm boundaries, words with multiple meanings, faces that send enigmatic messages, information that is incomplete or contradictory, answers that breed endless families of further questions.

"In that sort of world, exactness and fixed rules are poor strategies for survival. The brain evolved in such a way that it thrives on imperfect information, generalizing, filling in the missing parts from its large reserves of worldly knowledge, making plausible guesses, recognizing answers to problems rather than deducing them from premises, being satisfied with fast, approximate solutions. We use clues to construct plausible stories." [Campbell, 17-18]

And:

"The self, psychologist Anthony Greenwald thinks, is rather like a totalitarian state that fabricates and rewrites history, controlling information, distorting the way we think about reality. In certain respects it resembles Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984. As a[n] organizer of knowledge, the self is personal historian, but its scholarship is sometimes decidedly shoddy. The self tends to preserve existing knowledge structures in memory by resisting evidence that might render them suspect, because any disruption in the way knowledge is organized in the mind could make it less useful. Big Brother, the revisionist historian, preserves the illusion of his own infallibility by turning a blind eye to awkward facts." [255]

And:

"There is considerable evidence to suggest that self-schemas play a role in interpreting not only self, but other people as well.

"If we decide or are told to concentrate on details of what another person does or says, self-schemas will not play a crucial role. As soon as we decide to make inferences or predictions about that person, however, or try to interpret ambiguous behaviorand most behavior is ambiguoussuch schemas do exert a powerful influence. It becomes easier and more natural to think this way. Schemas are increasingly potent as information about the other person becomes less and less clear-cut and connected. Given free rein, they enable the mind to construct a whole biography, a complete profile, on the basis of very little in the way of hard evidence. As the evidence improves in quality, it tends to take control, and self-schemas play a diminished role." [253]

And:

"The shock of an unexpected outcome has to be felt in the present, or it is hardly felt at all. Looking back at the past has the curious effect of quelling novelty. That is because memory is biased, and psychologists are finding out just how biased it is. Memory is not a clear, transparent window onto the past, made by a perfect glazier, without bumps or flaws. It is much more like a storyteller, a partly deaf interpreter, or a rewrite editor in a newspaper office. It tends to remake the past in terms of what is plausible, given what is known about the world in general, trying to fit clues into a network of schemas, themes, stereotypes, and explanations." [236]

There you have it. The human mind frequently forces memories to conform to what is known (or, more aptly, what is believed) about the world. If the dominant narrative is that all sexual encounters are experienced as negative, then the brain will twist our memories to meet that expectation of reality, so that we avoid confusion and cognitive dissonance.

That I disbelieve many of those who support the dominant narrative is not a reflection on them; it is a reflection on reality and the marvelous power of the human brain to reshape things until they make sense, and your attempts to guilt-trip me into conforming to that paradigm by painting me as condescending and insensitive to victims is duly noted.

I am pretty sure that I have read this book and I agree, there is much evidence that this is precisely what happens but you will I think find that those memories that are formed in quite emotional or traumatic circumstances are precisely the ones that seem to remain as the more accurate ones over time. I would not claim that every person is going to have accurate memories but I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt unless good evidence proves this not to be the case. I do have a particular problem with recovered memories as they undoubtedly can provide erroneous outcomes. I have no problem with assertions relating to this. It is also particularly difficult with younger children since we do know they are quite capable of lying (after age about two) although generallly they do not lie unless given strong reasons, such as threats or fear of harming those to whom they have strong bonds.

I know about such societies but I do not think their experiences translate to our societies whereas perhaps you do.

I think the minds of children AND sexual contact are essentially the same in all cultures, so I think they are certainly worth looking at. Moreover, if sex is fundamentally harmful to children, as is maintained in the dominant paradigm, then culture should be irrelevant. Thus, by dismissing that evidence out of hand you are demonstrating the fallacy of the paradigm. I appreciate that.

No. What you are implying is that children are much the same all around the world so we can transfer culture and ideas without too many problems. What Sarah Goode describes as the problem in her book (which I agree with), that children are much the same in development and as persons is the reason why the harms of adult/child sexual interactions are so universal and apply to all children no matter where they live and in whatever culture. Just because the various cultures have their traditions does't mean they are essentially non-abusive towards their children. Giving this evidence simply begs the question that everything was A-OK in their culture at the time. It might simply be how the observer interpreted what he saw when reporting such events.

This really takes the biscuit. Having no ban on the possession must therefore mean that even the worst forms of abuse might be spread around. You really think this is going to make it 'more acceptable'? What do you imagine is actually out there?

What I think is 'out there' is about 75% pics of kids frolicking in the buff, 24% kids engaged in sexual contact (with adults and other kids) that is pleasant and fun,

Pleasant and fun can be imitated and since you say you have not seen such material you are going on what others say. I have seen such material and since I have been punished for doing so and that is past I can say that I don't regard the apparent consensual nature as being defining, especially when the problem of 'grooming' is huge and occurs over extended time.

and 1% horrorshow. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Not possible, since we commoners can never really know, can we? You, of course, will believe the percentages or reversed or some such, because you view us all as essentially cold and depraved, don't you? You revealed your hand right from the get-go . . . talk about being condescending.

As above, you are relying entirely on information from others. Not so for me.

I wouldn't know since I've never needed any but from what I have seen of the media in the UK there certainly doesn't seem to be an outcry regarding our mind-related health services, perhaps the shortage of them only.

You've never needed any mental health services, even though you were horribly abused? How could this be? Impossible! Oh, and there is plenty of outcry about the psychological community/abuse industry, often from the inside.

Please don't be such a pain. Where did I ever say such things? I said my particular abuse was not that severe and although it did have some long-term affects I have managed to reconcile what happened quite satisfactorily. It would have been much more quickly dealt with if I had approached someone but as for many children I just didn't appreciate the effects it was having or how it did damage me.

The availability may have affects in many other areas which could be just as damaging as crime-related ones.

We shouldn't determine whether keeping an activity right or wrong based on the way it may affect some small portion of the population.

No? We should look at ALL the future consequences of such decisions if possible, that is part of all good decision making and ensures not making costly mistakes.

Laws should be based on hard actualities, not soft potentialities. Murder is harmful by definition. In all murder cases a person loses their life. Thus, in all murder cases there is harm. That cannot be said of child porn offenses, despite the fact that that is often the argument. Basing a law on the notion that child porn revictimizes the victim is begging the question. It may in some cases, but that doesn't mean it does by definition. It's a bad law.

Keeping arguing your point but don't expect to get too far with it. A sensible person stops banging their head against a brick wall when it is obvious they are not going to effect change.

That is tough I will agree but I believe in the UK, the jury, if the person elects for jury trial, does see such evidence. It is graded according to the SAP scale which is a reduced version of the COPINE scale so presumably the barristers can see and challenge all evidence. The defence barristers are entitled to see any evidence presented against their clients.

I'll bet even in those cases the jury doesn't always get to see the evidence. But the argument is still relevant: only an elite few get to see it, and what jury members are going to admit that the children seemed to be having fun (if that was the case)?

They have to be guided by the law. If it is illegal then the person is guilty. The defence can provide expert witnesses that an image was 'art' for example and many have been found not guilty for possessong such material.

That again is supposition, as if they would want to continue having such images in their lives. As I've commented, it is much more likely that they would want it all to disappear. Have we seen anything of those involved in the Ukrainian affair? Perhaps they didn't want to be reminded of what they apparently consented to.

They don't have to have the images "in their lives" to make money on them. And do the Ukrainian kids have any chance of making money on what they did? I bet not. Besides, it's the Ukraine. I'm willing to bet that, on top of the usual societal cues of harm, that they were pressured by the state to conform to cultural expectations. The vast majority of those images were nothing more than simple nude photographs, and I doubt very much that the kids were traumatized by those experiences. Embarrassed maybe, but only because of the cultural condemnation.

Presuming that you haven't seen any of these images is to just speculate or believe what others tell you. 'Simple nude photographs' is not what spread posed nudes where the emphasis is on the genitals is an approprate description. You need to update your information database.

Perhaps the best bet is to empower them so they don't have sexual experiences before they are ready for them.

Begging the question. There is no solid proof that there is some ideal time that humans should have sexual experiences, and in fact, I can think of many good reasons why kids should have such experiences early.

I'm sure you can. Most paedophiles can. It makes their job of having sexual interactions with children so much easier doesn't it? You provide some proof that early sexual experiences are essentially beneficial to children.

Perhaps I have read more than you then because it does happen and if you did some research into children's care homes - Mary Bell for example was abused in one of her care homes - you will find it. I have seen similar accounts in research papers and journals about child sexual abuse - sorry, have lost most of links and many I had to obtain from our library system. Many bibliographies at the backs of books about abuse will give the journals from which their examples come from.

I didn't say it never happened. I said I'd never read of such, so knock off the straw man bullshit. My contention is that it's rare. Besides, I doubt whether anyone who is prone to abusing others will make such a decision based on whether their victim has been sexual with others or not. More than likely they would do it anyway and merely use that as an excuse. If it wasn't that excuse, it would've been another.

Yes, but I was illustrating a point about the fact that children having early sexual experiences was not entirely beneficial and they were often targeted because of this.

I don't know how many kids do have such experiences. It is common I know but for how many I wouldn't truly like to guess. For some children they will see other children nude of both sexes and this will undoubtedly make them less conscious of their bodies if it happens in a normal environment. Some also experiment sexually but from some accounts most do not go beyond exploration, play and masturbation. Perhaps many will be more interested in an adult's body as they get older.

So what is a normal environment? One where children are not made to feel ashamed of their bodies, or to explore each other's? And yet many--especially when they are a few years apart--will, because of the taboo, feel like they molested the smaller child. Some will even be punished for it, maybe even arrested. But then again, if sexual contact is inherently harmful to kids, then sex play even between kids will cause harm, so society should drum that shit right outta kids, I suppose. Making them feel guilt and shame over their bodies must be less harmful than any kind of sexual contact, so we should be scaring the ever-loving shit out of them. That's the Southern Baptist and Pentecostal perspective, I can tell you that much. And it certainly works wonders! All you have to do is examine the states in the US with the highest teen birth rates to see what a good job my conservative friends and neighbors are doing hammering that message home. It's not like kids ever want to do things adults tell them they shouldn't ;-)

As I posted this before I'll repeat it. Just a typical example of current thinking about child sexual development. Perhaps there is an issue with relationships beyond a few years gap for a reason that the power balance has become too great. A journal summary I saw recently seemed to suggest that the earlier one had sexual relationships then the greater number of partners resulted (easy lay theory) and more problematic relationships.

In relation to sexual development, common sexual behaviours in childhood (which might be missing entirely in many children) that would not seem abnormal by parents and professionals dealing with child issues in most countries are detailed below.

Preschool children (less than 4 years) - Exploring and touching private parts, in public and in private; rubbing private parts (with hand or against objects); showing private parts to others; trying to touch mothers or other womens breasts; removing clothing and wanting to be naked; attempting to see other people when they are naked or undressing (such as in the bathroom); asking questions about their own and others bodies and bodily functions; talking to children their own age about bodily functions usually involving primitive slang.

Young Children (approximately 4 - 6 years) - Purposefully touching private parts (perhaps masturbation), occasionally in the presence of others; attempting to see other people when they are naked or undressing; mimicking dating behaviour (such as kissing, or holding hands); talking about private parts and using naughty words, even when they dont understand the meaning; exploring private parts with children their own age (such as playing doctor, I will show you mine if you will show me yours, etc.)

School-Aged Children (approximately 7 - 12 years) - Purposefully touching private parts (masturbation), usually in private; playing games with children their own age that involve sexual behaviour (such as truth or dare, playing family, or boyfriend/girlfriend); attempting to see other people naked or undressing; looking at pictures of naked or partially naked people; viewing/listening to sexual content in media (television, movies, games, the Internet, music, etc.); wanting more privacy (for example, not wanting to undress in front of other people) and being reluctant to talk to adults about sexual issues; beginnings of sexual attraction to/interest in peers.

Sexual behaviour that might be a problem includes any act that: Is clearly beyond the childs developmental stage (for example, a 3-year-old attempting to kiss an adults genitals); involves threats, force, or aggression; involves children of widely different ages or abilities (such as a 12-year-old playing doctor with a 4-year-old); provokes strong emotional reactions in the child - such as anger or anxiety.

--

Unfortunately this is not true - that only crying and pain are the defining characteristics of abuse. There is plenty of evidence that those who had such experiences, and who often were 'groomed', were uncomfortable at the time but were unable to express themselves fully to extricate them from the situations. The 'clearly enjoying it' can arise from grooming. If, as many do, they groom a child from a very young age what would you expect of them? It has been a slow process and initially the child has no conception of what is happening or to where it is leading.

I didn't say that crying and pain were the defining characteristics of abuse, so yet another straw man. I was suggesting that kids have a difficult time hiding their emotions. I was abused; I was fondled against my will, or at least I was never asked. I didn't cry or experience pain or disgust, merely a bit of confusion. But I also experienced amusement and, yes, pleasure (though not sexual pleasure, more of an emotional bonding sort of pleasure--well, I was 7). But my consent was neither sought nor given, so it was abuse in my book. But I reject the view that I must've been emotionally harmed by the event. Never happened--the emotional harm came from society, upon my realization of how the sexual contact was viewed. I know this because my relatives have confirmed the experiences I had, including the bragging I did about it after I was fondled. In fact, that relative was the one who told me to stay away from the guy and not to talk about it to anyone else. Of course, she had a very good reason for wanting me to keep it secret, but I see no need to get into that here.

'Grooming' is such a loaded bullshit word anyway. What it really means is that kids feel comfortable with the experience of sex with the adult by getting to know them, basically the same thing adults who are dating do. Or it can mean the natural organic process of two people, adult and child, coming to be involved in a romantic relationship. Basically anything other than 'child is thrown down and violently raped' or 'child is kidnapped and violently raped' falls under grooming, because it can never just happen--the adult must always have had devious designs to be sexual with the child and don't really care about the child. The narrative of the evil pedophile and the poor unwilling victim must always be maintained. What a complete crock of shit.

Your experiences apparently defined you. Not so in my case since that episode hasn't affected my reasoning. More disagreement on what is 'grooming', not unexpected.

UK mate, not interested in much of what happens in the USA, why should I be?

Fine, you're an ethnocentrist. I already figured that out when you matter-of-factly and unequivocally dismissed the experiences of millions of children (tribal and otherwise) who do not happen to share your culture, simply because they do not support your claims.

What, you mean I have to be subservient to all things USA, get a life chum, it is many of those in the USA who think the world revolves around them.

Child porn legislation has been tightened all around the world. As to porn I suggest you read Gail Dines book Pornland although much the same sort of material can be found on the Web I should think. Feminists might have a loud voice relating to this but I think they have good reasons to see the harms to society it causes - I certainly agree with much of the criticism of porn and it dosen't come from prudery or any other place other then what porn actually does to people, especially when it can become so addictive - just as CP is too. Saying this, I don't want to get into a debate about porn since, other than the occassional browsing for some, I don't regard it as a big part of my life.

Gail Dines is a complete ethnocentric & culturocentric (just like you) dumb-ass (not calling YOU a dumb-ass) and her arguments are handily dealt with by Ray Harris over at his blog. Her book is undoubtedly more of the same biased bull puckey.

I am sure there are just as many pro-porn bloggers as anti-porn ones. Suggestion, read that book and I'll read a book you want me to read.

I might be doing lots of things but that doesn't mean that overall my position is not the correct one and you're incorrect, just that my proficiency at debating is not as good as yours perhaps. jd420 no doubt could walk all over me if he wanted to but still be wrong.

The problem with you isn't simply that you're a bad debater. If it was there would be misunderstanding between us, but I couldn't consistently point out your logical fallacies. No, you're an intelligent guy and your points are clear enough. The problem lies with your arguments, which are inherently flawed. And even though I continue to point out your fallacies over and over again, you simply dismiss me and throw out your version of the childish taunt "Is so, nah nah nah boo boo!" Or you just refer me to other people's stuff without qualifying it and you're off the hook. What you are encountering isn't the limitations of your arguing style; it is the limitations of the arguments themselves.

Or your limitations in accepting other positions on essentially non-verifiable evidence or lack of evidence.

Too big an issue so would take up too much of my time. We see things differently and I suspect no amount of discussion would alter your views on this subject since if you did see children as most non-paedophiles do then your whole position might crumble. This is why people like griffith despises me, his overall beliefs concerning children, sexuality and adults are under threat and hence the attacks. If we had views that were truly strong and true then we wouldn't get so uptight when defending them as long as each provided good evidence and didn't resort to trickery.

Ah, ye olde cop-out. Okay. Well, if I saw children as most non-pedos did, then I probably wouldn't hold these views, would I?

Ever thought of trying? Impossible for most I think.

Nevertheless, the soundness of my arguments do not rest on how anyone views children; they rest on facts and logic, and the facts and logic simply do not support the majority of your views. I'm not claiming, nor will claim, that you're wrong about everything; I'm claiming that much of what you say is either wrong or unprovable in the current environment.

And as for our "uptightness" and anger we feel, you don't get it all. Let me ask you a question? Have you ever been told to kill yourself because of who you are?

You think I haven't been outed in newspapers and had to keep my head below the parapet? Of course I have but I haven't formed a hatred for society or for anyone else because of how I was treated. I recognise their actions were done with the best of intentions to protect children. Perhaps the treatment of paedophiles is extremely harsh at the moment but it will certainly not change by the head-in-the-sand attitudes of many here at GC - expectations of legalising CP - NOT A CHANCE.

Are you constantly exposed to images in Facebook--sometimes from close friends and family--that say, "Pedophiles should be put down like dogs"? Have you read articles that were less than revealing about what really occurred, and them read the hundreds of replies that expressed similar sentiments as above? We face this shit everyday. If the case revealed that someone had really raped, and even murdered, a child, I would relate to the feeling, but people always respond to these issues, no matter how complex, the same way. It's not about our views being under threat; it's about us being under threat. Not only do we face a lifetime of loneliness and unfulfilled relationships, we also have to deal with likes of you rubbing it in our face that we are different and that society hates us. Or, as in my case, being fired for nothing. I have no criminal record at all. Zero. And yet I was fired for merely advocating for better treatment for us. Sex abuse victims, real and imaginary, have all the sympathizers they want or need. We have almost none, no matter how fucked up our lives are, no matter how much we adhere to the law.

You want to talk about empathy and understanding? That shit cuts both ways. Do you think we are really much better off in our lives by living within the law. We don't go to jail, great. But many of us still have no relationships because we are not attracted to adults, and even when some part of us is, how many women are really understanding of the fact that your primary orientation is not doable and you had to settle for them? That is, of course, providing they are willing to stay with you once they learn your sexual orientation. So here's a thought: maybe you could lay the fuck off griffith and the rest of us for being a little bitter! Okay?

Lay off the troll-ranting little dwarf, are you his bodyguard, I thought AK47 might have been more suitable? You might suggest he does the same for me and he actually started all this. OK!

Sorry, but the inherent power imbalance is an issue, often is quite subtle, and cannot really be done away with.

Sorry, but it isn't. If it was an issue, then it should be an issue across the board, with all circumstances where a similar dynamic occurs, similar emotional experiences, etc. But it isn't. Thus, special pleading. If you address nothing else in my post, address this huge discrepancy (I mean beyond just repeating the same stupid talking point over and over) because this is really the crux of the issue here.

Go and find your own information on child development, I'm not doing your research for you. But of course you will not believe it since it comes from a biased viewpoint.