Child/Adult Sexual Contact and Evidence

[issuishman]

I started this thread to play Devils Advocate. I have my own view that is against all consensual relations between a child who is under 18 and a person who is at least four years older than person under 18. I want to improve my argument to uphold the present laws and I can only do that by having someone to argue with. I can't argue with people who agree with me, everyone just stands around and says yes, yes, I agree. Boring! And unproductive. So, I've decided to play Devils Advocate and debate from the other point of view, in hopes my standpoint will be strengthened. So don't make personal attacks against me, just debate intelligently.

Exit me, enter the Counsel of the Devil...

The law that prohibits children and an adults having consensual sexual relations is not valid, because it has no evidence supporting harmful effect during consensual sexual relations.

If you are not in league with yours truly, Lucifer, I'm sure you think adult/child consensual sexual relations unacceptable. But I will make a claim that by the end of this thread you will be unable to make an argument using direct or indirect evidence proving harm exists or comes from this sexual act. Direct evidence is what happens immediately during the act. Indirect evidence is what happens after the act is done.

Whether the evidence is direct or indirect, there are three possible categories evidence falls in: physical evidence, emotional evidence and/or psychological evidence. Each piece of evidence has to indicate harm or affection.

Is it possible to prove a consensual act of sexual affection between adult and a child is harmful? Those in the underworld know it is impossible.

Hells Claim: Consensual sexual relations between an adult and a child cause emotional and psychological bonding.

Direct Evidence: When humans touch they experience sensation from two perspectives: from pleasuring someone they care about and from being touched and pleasured by the person they care about. Physically affectionate touching produces chemicals in the blood stream that gives both persons anywhere from mild sense of satisfaction to euphoria. These chemicals are experienced in psychological states along with the physical act of touching. Memories are produced from the experience which represent the physical and emotional states of satisfaction and pleasure.

Indirect Evidence: The memories that are produced from the affectionate experience reside after the experience occurs. These memories are indirect effects from the experience, because they continue to occur after the direct experience. When a human relives these memories, they simply experience the pleasurable act.

Prove the Devil Wrong: Make a claim and provides any direct and/or indirect evidence that shows that there is physical, emotional and/or psychological harm that occurs.

**note, do not post inappropriate material and keep your argument logical.

 

[nubianconcubine]

alright, satan. i will undertake your challenge.

i am the adult product of sexual relations with an older person. i was around 2 or 3 and the boy was around 7 or 8. the age gap is a bit larger than you specified but i'm sure you won't argue so trivial a point.
i adored this boy. my mother, my brother, and i had to live in a homeless shelter at the time due to spousal battery. he was always very nice to me. he always played with me. i remember being his favorite.
i realize that - being twenty six now - this was a very long time ago but i remember it like it was yesterday.

one day, when everyone else was busy he took me to a room. it was dark and there were beds. he proceeded to lay me down, like he usually did when it time for me to sleep only this time he got into the bed with me. i was not afraid. i was intrigued. he tried to initiate intercourse with me but it wasn't possible, i assume, because of my age. he started to get up...i stopped him. i wanted to know what we were doing and why. and, strangely enough, he answered all my questions. when i asked why he didn't go on and do it he said it was because i was too young and it wouldn't work. i attempted to convince him to do it anyway, but he refused. he said not to tell anyone because if i did the grownups would get angry. after giving me a goodnight kiss he left the room...

i don't remember that incident as a painful occurence. in fact, i remember it exactly as you described it. a pyschological link to an exciting and somewhat pleasurable experience between two persons that care for one another.

however, this instance in my life has defined me as an adult today. i feel that sex should have pain in it to be pleasurable. i feel that sex is the only way two people can connect, even casually. sex is the way that i show my affection. my romantic history is a bedpost with notches on it.
i found myself obsessed with sex from that moment on. even now, i associate almost everything with sex.
i feel that sex is not for me to enjoy. it is for my partner to enjoy. i am nothing more than a tool to my partner's climax.

i function normally on a daily basis despite this. however, i find myself going from partner to partner, trying to recreate that event, trying to find a lover that is him. and that's impossible. because i have grown, i feel differently about intercourse. i am not the little girl i was and therefore i cannot be pleasured the same way.
but because my first experience with it happened at so early an age, before my body even understood the concept, my sexual identity has frozen at that age. now, for me, sex is nothing more than an intriguing curiousity and not the bonding that is suppose to occur between two consenting adults. arousal comes only when i am treated as a child. you can understand how...awkward that can be. not even my husband understands the true nature of my sexuality.

in theory, your claims could be supported. in life, your theoretical child/adult relationship would have to be carried on indefinitely or at least until the child was old and mature enough to venture out for other relationships. and even then the separation would most likely cause severe trauma in the form of confusion, self-esteem issues, etc.

so you see, consentual does not mean informed, prepared, or ready. it means that the person "says" yes. it does not mean the person understands the situation they are in or the consequences of accepting it. even if the child is brought to orgasm and enjoys the activity, it could have serious ramifications in his/her emotional/psychological development later.

think of it like this. just because you like something doesn't mean it is good for you i.e. fast food, T.V., drugs, etc.

 

[q0101]

I don’t think that minors are always harmed when they have sex with adults. There are many things to consider. The age of the minor, the maturity of the minor, and the gender of the minor. I can tell you that I definitely would not have been traumatized if a beautiful woman wanted to have sex with me when I was 12, 13, 14, Ect. I would have loved it, but not all teenagers were as mature as I was.

I think there is a big difference between rape and statutory rape. Statutory rape is not rape. It is a consensual act between an adult and someone under the age of 18. I like the laws in the country that I reside in. (Canada) The age of consent is presently 14, but the government is planning to raise it to 16. However it will be legal for an adult to have sex with a person under the age of 16 if the adult’s age is within 5 years of the minor. The 5-year law will apply to minors over the age of 14. Minors under the age of 14 can legally have sex with someone that is within 2 years of their age. I think the 5-year law is a good idea because it will prevent miscarriages of justice in my opinion. (Teenagers being charged with statutory rape for having sex with someone that is two or three years younger than them)

 

[issuishman]

alright, satan. i will undertake your challenge.

i am the adult product of sexual relations with an older person. i was around 2 or 3 and the boy was around 7 or 8. the age gap is a bit larger than you specified but i'm sure you won't argue so trivial a point.
i adored this boy. my mother, my brother, and i had to live in a homeless shelter at the time due to spousal battery. he was always very nice to me. he always played with me. i remember being his favorite.
i realize that - being twenty six now - this was a very long time ago but i remember it like it was yesterday.

one day, when everyone else was busy he took me to a room. it was dark and there were beds. he proceeded to lay me down, like he usually did when it time for me to sleep only this time he got into the bed with me. i was not afraid. i was intrigued. he tried to initiate intercourse with me but it wasn't possible, i assume, because of my age. he started to get up...i stopped him. i wanted to know what we were doing and why. and, strangely enough, he answered all my questions. when i asked why he didn't go on and do it he said it was because i was too young and it wouldn't work. i attempted to convince him to do it anyway, but he refused. he said not to tell anyone because if i did the grownups would get angry. after giving me a goodnight kiss he left the room...

i don't remember that incident as a painful occurence. in fact, i remember it exactly as you described it. a pyschological link to an exciting and somewhat pleasurable experience between two persons that care for one another.

however, this instance in my life has defined me as an adult today. i feel that sex should have pain in it to be pleasurable. i feel that sex is the only way two people can connect, even casually. sex is the way that i show my affection. my romantic history is a bedpost with notches on it.
i found myself obsessed with sex from that moment on. even now, i associate almost everything with sex.
i feel that sex is not for me to enjoy. it is for my partner to enjoy. i am nothing more than a tool to my partner's climax.

i function normally on a daily basis despite this. however, i find myself going from partner to partner, trying to recreate that event, trying to find a lover that is him. and that's impossible. because i have grown, i feel differently about intercourse. i am not the little girl i was and therefore i cannot be pleasured the same way.
but because my first experience with it happened at so early an age, before my body even understood the concept, my sexual identity has frozen at that age. now, for me, sex is nothing more than an intriguing curiousity and not the bonding that is suppose to occur between two consenting adults. arousal comes only when i am treated as a child. you can understand how...awkward that can be. not even my husband understands the true nature of my sexuality.

in theory, your claims could be supported. in life, your theoretical child/adult relationship would have to be carried on indefinitely or at least until the child was old and mature enough to venture out for other relationships. and even then the separation would most likely cause severe trauma in the form of confusion, self-esteem issues, etc.

so you see, consentual does not mean informed, prepared, or ready. it means that the person "says" yes. it does not mean the person understands the situation they are in or the consequences of accepting it. even if the child is brought to orgasm and enjoys the activity, it could have serious ramifications in his/her emotional/psychological development later.

think of it like this. just because you like something doesn't mean it is good for you i.e. fast food, T.V., drugs, etc.

You provided no evidence that shows the experience caused harm. You said he tried to do something that physically was impossible. He was cared enough about humans in general not to hurt you and let you be. This experience did not cause the huge momemtum you described as a result in your life. Instead, you showed how a very insignificant moment shaped your life. It was your mind that made you think such an insignificant thing could have such a big influence. It was a mental disorder on your part that created such a big momentum, not the incident that was so fleeting.

 

[issuishman]

IThe age of consent is presently 14, but the government is planning to raise it to 16. However it will be legal for an adult to have sex with a person under the age of 16 if the adult’s age is within 5 years of the minor. The 5-year law will apply to minors over the age of 14. Minors under the age of 14 can legally have sex with someone that is within 2 years of their age.

Looks like the lawyers and the Judicial system have cooked up a way to generate some business. When a behavior is legal and people are invovled with the behavior, and you convince the masses it illegal, as the judicial system, you create business for yourself, justification for your establishment for being busy at work.

You ought to look at the lack of evidence used for the basis of their justification. You won't find evidence that consensual affection causes any harm.

It's clear that it's instituationally and finacially motivated.

In America, if we legalized marijuana the cops would have to chase the meth dealers, the real rising drug epidemic. We would have less overcrowded courtrooms and prisons. Less parole officers. Less defense lawyers. Less money spent on investigations, police work, etc., etc.

If American law could raise the age of consent, they would, but they will never do it with an valid evidence based argument.

 

[q0101]

Issuishman, you want some proof that minors can be harmed from having consensual sex with adults.

Think about the minors that engaged in consensual sexual activity with their family members. When they were minors they probably did not think that there was anything wrong with what they were doing. As they got older they probably realized that our society does not condone incest. It could cause some psychological harm to a person that believed they were doing nothing wrong as a child.

I think females are the ones that are usually harmed by engaging in sexual activities with adults. Males don’t have to worry about getting pregnant. Males don’t have to go through the pain of childbirth or abortions. There are very view female teenagers that have the maturity and knowledge to raise a child. Getting pregnant at a young age could definitely harm a minor.

Sexual transmitted diseases are another thing that I can think of. Some minors may not be well informed about the STD’s that exists. An adult can easily convince minor to engage in risky behavior that they may not have done later in their lives.

 

[issuishman]

Issuishman, you want some proof that minors can be harmed from having consensual sex with adults.

Think about the minors that engaged in consensual sexual activity with their family members. When they were minors they probably did not think that there was anything wrong with what they were doing. As they got older they probably realized that our society does not condone incest. It could cause some psychological harm to a person that believed they were doing nothing wrong as a child.

It would be a good argument my Earthly son, but me thinks affection doesn't cause social condemnation. The sexual affection causes orgasm. Orgasm doesn't cause social condemnation. Orgasm causes psychological and emotional bonding. Affection doesn't create belief in wrong. If the thought of wrongness is believed by them, it is not caused from the act, it is caused from people with moral panic who somehow have confused affection with abuse.

If you look at my horns, you better refer to them as horns.

Yours Truly,

The Prince of Darkness

 

[S.A.M.]

It would be a good argument my Earthly son, but me thinks affection doesn't cause social condemnation. The sexual affection causes orgasm. Orgasm doesn't cause social condemnation. Orgasm causes psychological and emotional bonding. Affection doesn't create belief in wrong. If the thought of wrongness is believed by them, it is not caused from the act, it is caused from people with moral panic who somehow have confused affection with abuse.

If you look at my horns, you better refer to them as horns.

Yours Truly,

The Prince of Darkness

So adult/child sexual contact is always accompanied by affection? There is no coercion involved? According to your premise, one would have to assume that a child would accept a sexual overture as a normal gesture; yet children who are molested may also be simultaneously subjected to humiliation, violence and the betrayal of trust when the abuser is close to them.

In addition, children who suffer from sexual abuse are generally withdrawn, shy and excessively damaged emotionally- is this a result of the affection do you think?

Raped women may get stimulated too, but that does not contribute to affection; nor does it bring on social condemnation; yet it is seen that just around 10% of rape victims actually report being raped.

 

[perplexity]

.... yet it is seen that just around 10% of rape victims actually report being raped.

Except that the other 90 percent presumably reported to somebody, and if this means that in those instances a trial did not ensue, then in law there was no rape; the accused being innocent until proved guilty, if you please.

--- Ron.

 

[S.A.M.]

Except that the other 90 percent presumably reported to somebody, and if this means that in those instances a trial did not ensue, then in law there was no rape; the accused being innocent until proved guilty, if you please.

--- Ron.

So you would apply the same logistics to an unreported child abuse case?

Anyway, we are not debating the legalities here, I am just countering the claim that sexual "affection" precedes bonding, and hence is not inherently "wrong".

 

[perplexity]

So you would apply the same logistics to an unreported child abuse case?

Yes, of course, child abuse being one of the most frequent sorts of maliciously false allegation.

Anyway, we are not debating the legalities here, I am just countering the claim that sexual "affection" precedes bonding, and hence is not inherently "wrong".

I think the whole thing sits on dangerous ground, if not on quicksand. What about for instance a teenage daughter who deliberately courts the sexual affection of her father? Children exert their own power, deliberately and effectively.

--- Ron.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, of course, child abuse being one of the most frequent sorts of maliciously false allegation.

Does that mean that all cases of child abuse are considered suspect? Are the victims treated as suspects until found to be otherwise?

I think the whole thing sits on dangerous ground, if not on quicksand. What about for instance a teenage daughter who deliberately courts the sexual affection of her father? Children exert their own power, deliberately and effectively.

In other words, "she asked for it" ?
I assume the father at least is an adult and able to distinguish his daughter from other females?

 

[perplexity]

Does that mean that all cases of child abuse are considered suspect? Are the victims treated as suspects until found to be otherwise?

It means that they should be. Witch hunts do happen.

In other words, "she asked for it" ?
I assume the father at least is an adult and able to distinguish his daughter from other females?

The point being....?

The typical difficulty would rather be to distinguish and define what sort of affection is legitimate. One thing leads to another and with an effect that does not depend upon a prosecutable offence taking place. Abuse may be subtle but insidious. It is arguable, indeed, that overt abuse is less harmful than the stress of a craving unfulfilled.

--- Ron

 

[S.A.M.]

It means that they should be. Witch hunts do happen.

I find it amazing that a society in which a legal system is willing to accept a criminal innocent until proven guilty would deny the same privilege to a victim, in this case, an under age victim.

The point being....?

The typical difficulty would rather be to distinguish and define what sort of affection is legitimate. One thing leads to another and with an effect that does not depend upon a prosecutable offence taking place. Abuse may be subtle but insidious. It is arguable, indeed, that overt abuse is less harmful than the stress of a craving unfulfilled.

There is something seriously wrong with a society that cannot distinguish sexual love from parental love.

Unfulfilled cravings??? Children are looking to adults for sexual fulfillment??

Can you not see anything wrong with this? How does a child come to believe in a sexual bond with an adult? Why would a child look at an adult and see a sexual partner?

A parent or adult is source of guidance for a child; a child learns the strategies of coping with the world and himself or herself through imitation first, then thought and imagination. These qualities should be nurtured and guided. A society where the child's coping abilities include sexual deviance is a sign of failure on the part of the adults responsible.

 

[nubianconcubine]

You provided no evidence that shows the experience caused harm. You said he tried to do something that physically was impossible. He was cared enough about humans in general not to hurt you and let you be. This experience did not cause the huge momemtum you described as a result in your life. Instead, you showed how a very insignificant moment shaped your life. It was your mind that made you think such an insignificant thing could have such a big influence. It was a mental disorder on your part that created such a big momentum, not the incident that was so fleeting.

how can you be so sure that the incident itself didn't cause the "harm". you have no way of proving that it didn't, honestly. do not tell me to provide evidence, tell me it isn't good enough, and then try to explain it away without your own supporting evidence.
how dare you describe this moment as "insignifacant"? i tried to do as you requested and spare you the details. i was penetrated, but not with his penis. it did hurt but he didn't continue because he could see it was pointless. the moment that was so very insignificant still happened to me. you cannot seriously judge the severity of a trauma by the length of time in which it occurred. that would be utter stupidity.
as far as it being my mind that caused my life to go on as it has, you are right. and the fact that you don't see that in itself as evidence enough is alarming. of course it was my mind! traumas tend to do things to one's mind. for you to sit back and smugly proclaim that the aftereffects of abuse are the fault of the victim and not the aggressor/incident itself is pure madness. because i was too weak i created a "mental disorder" to find a reason to blame the boy for what i knowingly walked into, is that it? a two-year-old cocktease crying foul.
i never blamed the boy. never, not even while telling you what happened. in fact, he had most likely been a victim himself at some point given our environment and circumstances surrounding being there in the first place. but i know that the way i am is not the way i'm suppose to be. and i know that the reason i am this way is because of what happened between him and me. and i know that he knew it was wrong because his parting words were a warning to keep it to myself.
now if he'd "cared enough about humans in general" he would never have done this in the first place. it has nothing to do with the whole of humanity anyway. it has to do with each and every single child individually and what they have or could go thru and what is going thru the mind of the "adult" as he/she goes about the "seduction". using that word is a joke. the prime reason for arousal is to ready the bodies for the act of procreation. the orgasm is nothing more than assurance that the seed is passed and recieved (women's orgasm causes the cervix to dip down into the vaginal canal where man's semen has pooled to insure that some of it is passed into the womb). why, i ask you would children want to do such a thing. most children don't even know what to make of sex. it doesn't touch them the way it does adults. we see sex and we get aroused. they see sex and they get confused. *note: curiousity is not sexual desire.
i learned that night that the way to show you like someone is to have sexual contact with them. i was notorious in highschool for "marking" my friends, all of whom were male. i took a couple of virginities and didn't understand why these guys followed me like puppies. i had a harem for cripe's sake! it was just sex. it was nothing. it was like a handshake or a hug. that is what has happened to me as a result; perhaps i'm a sexual sociopath.

 

[leopold]

I find it amazing that a society in which a legal system is willing to accept a criminal innocent until proven guilty would deny the same privilege to a victim, in this case, an under age victim.

why would you find it amazing?
pedophilia in my neck of the woods is a serious crime, people go to prison for long periods of time because of it.

what are you saying here? the courts should take an underage victims word at face value and immediatly imprison the alledged perpetrator? he is innocent till proved guilty remember? a persons word is not proof. the only exception to that is when a person is on their deathbed and knows for a fact that they are dying,

 

[S.A.M.]

why would you find it amazing?
pedophilia in my neck of the woods is a serious crime, people go to prison for long periods of time because of it.

Unlike murder? Oh wait! in murder the victim is already dead, so it doesn't really matter. The legal system exists for a reason and everyone, adult or child is entitiled to equal protection under the law. Or am I wrong?

what are you saying here? the courts should take an underage victims word at face value and immediatly imprison the alledged perpetrator? he is innocent till proved guilty remember? a persons word is not proof. the only exception to that is when a person is on their deathbed and knows for a fact that they are dying,

So what you are saying is that the alleged perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty but the underage victim is not?

 

[nubianconcubine]

It means that they should be. Witch hunts do happen.



The point being....?

The typical difficulty would rather be to distinguish and define what sort of affection is legitimate. One thing leads to another and with an effect that does not depend upon a prosecutable offence taking place. Abuse may be subtle but insidious. It is arguable, indeed, that overt abuse is less harmful than the stress of a craving unfulfilled.

--- Ron

let me get this straight. you think that a child sexually frustrated should be pitied whereas a child that has been "satisfied" should deal with it?...
you know what?
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE CHILD IS SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED.
let's liken child abuse to sodomizing you. i'll assume you've never had it happen. how would you feel if someone you knew well, bigger, and more experienced than you approached you with the proposition of "honeypot love" one day? you don't know what it is but it sounds nice, right? as things progress, you find you kind of like the way the lead-up feels. it's pleasurable. and then they try to shove something up your backdoor. you're probably not going to like that. but what are you going to do? it feels good, it doesn't feel right. you like the person but you don't like what they're doing to you. what do you do?
now let's add to it that children have NO social skills to speak of. they don't know how to tell you they don't like it. they don't want to make you mad because they truly like/love you but they don't like what's happening. however, because YOU seem to like it so much, they think they should to and when they don't they feel something is wrong with them.
sex doesn't lead to bonding, it leads to orgasm. and orgasm doesn't lead to bonding, it leads to sleep or getting your clothes and going home to sleep.
the only "bonding" that could occur is the subconscious thought that you can do it again with this person, hence making you idenitify with that person more. it has nothing to with emotion, only the assurance of more sex. and for some adult to feel that way about a child is selfish. in fact, this whole debate is based on trying to justify the selfish desires of an adult that cannot bring him/herself to have a real relationship with another adult.

 

[perplexity]

I find it amazing that a society in which a legal system is willing to accept a criminal innocent until proven guilty would deny the same privilege to a victim, in this case, an under age victim.

But that was not what I proposed.

There is something seriously wrong with a society that cannot distinguish sexual love from parental love.

How then do you distinguish? Affection is affection. The two varieties do not exist in separate compartments. Perhaps in another twenty or thirty years you get to a better realisation of this, when the largest part of sex is the ordinary affection of it and the horny bit is an extra if he is lucky enough to be fit to manage it.

Unfulfilled cravings??? Children are looking to adults for sexual fulfillment??

Possibly they do, but that was not what I had meant to propose.

Can you not see anything wrong with this? How does a child come to believe in a sexual bond with an adult? Why would a child look at an adult and see a sexual partner?

I proposed that children exert their own power, deliberately and effectively.

A parent or adult is source of guidance for a child; a child learns the strategies of coping with the world and himself or herself through imitation first, then thought and imagination. These qualities should be nurtured and guided. A society where the child's coping abilities include sexual deviance is a sign of failure on the part of the adults responsible.

But that presumes that everybody is fully aware and in control of the conditioning process. In the real World that is not what happens.
A child may be exert a sexual effect with no particular awarenes that this is happening, only that a certain benefit is to be derived because of a certain sort of behaviour.
The benefit to the child determines the child's deliberation, and the benefit is not necessarily sex per se.

let me get this straight. you think that a child sexually frustrated should be pitied whereas a child that has been "satisfied" should deal with it?...

No. What I think is what I wrote.

you know what?
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE CHILD IS SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED.
let's liken child abuse to sodomizing you. i'll assume you've never had it happen. how would you feel if someone you knew well, bigger, and more experienced than you approached you with the proposition of "honeypot love" one day? .....

Propose that if you will but it was not what I proposed.

The case I put is rather that the child approaches wiith the honeypot.
That is how children make a livng, by being cute.
On thing leads to another, and where then do you draw the line?

--- Ron.

 

[leopold]

Unlike murder? Oh wait! in murder the victim is already dead, so it doesn't really matter. The legal system exists for a reason and everyone, adult or child is entitiled to equal protection under the law. Or am I wrong?
So what you are saying is that the alleged perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty but the underage victim is not?

the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. it doesn't matter if they are 12 or 89 years old.
they must prove their case

lets take an exampl;e here.
i am underage. i accuse you sam of fondling my genitals
i am the victim in this case i am innocent.
what do you think should happen in this scenario sam?