|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 9:48:06 GMT -5
Just to be clear, here is what one of the researchers (Clancy) stated in an interview with Salon: SALON: One could argue that your claims could encourage child abusers — or convince them that what they’re doing isn’t wrong. How do you respond to that?
CLANCY: Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.
Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick. Do you agree with Clancy that it rarely psychologically damages a child? She said that regardless of the outcome child abuse is wrong. Because a child is not damaged in any way does not mean that child sexual abuse is OK. Again, in this statement the blanket term child sexual abuse was used. Regardless of the outcome, short or long term, it is wrong. Wong even it it rarely (or never) causes physically or psychologically damage.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 2, 2014 9:51:08 GMT -5
Read what he wrote.....we protect them "because" its wrong.
Who determines what is "wrong".
Someone leaves an electrical wire exposed. Some have touched live electrical wires and came out unscathed. Others have died. I would protect my child from the wire because of the potential damage it could cause....not because it was wrong to leave it exposed.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 10:13:13 GMT -5
Read what he wrote.....we protect them "because" its wrong. Who determines what is "wrong". Someone leaves an electrical wire exposed. Some have touched live electrical wires and came out unscathed. Others have died. I would protect my child from the wire because of the potential damage it could cause....not because it was wrong to leave it exposed. Some people believe sexual contact between an adult and child is wrong (no matter the outcome for the child) because a child is not old enough/mature enough/powerful enough to give true consent. Adults can easily manipulate and take advantage of children. The damage-based argument that you make is, I believe, why there is such an emotional reaction to the suggestion that sexual abuse of a child isn't always damaging to the child. Assuming you don't want adults to be sexual with children, you are suddenly vulnerable to the argument that under some circumstances, it is ok for an adult to make sexual advances on a child. However, if one argues that sexual violation of a child is wrong, because the child isn't old enough/mature enough/powerful enough to give true sexual consent, then the suggestion that some sexual encounters between an adult and child are not significantly damaging to a child does not threaten the underpinnings of the argument that no matter what the outcome for the child, any adult/child sexual encounter constitutes child sexual abuse, and is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 10:23:08 GMT -5
Of the reported cases of child sexual abuse, do you have an opinion on how many of the children suffered short term or long term damages? As many researchers have pointed out, the cause of the damage is rarely attributable only to the sexual abuse. The study I referenced earlier pointed this out. I sense that what you are looking for is a percentage of individuals who have reported being victims of any type of crime that falls into the broad child sexual abuse category where the child suffers either short term or long term damage that can be attributed directly and solely to the child sexual abuse. In my experience such a case would be rare and even focusing on this would be a disservice to other abused children. The outcome of child abuse cases is a moot point. Whether there is short term, long term, or no damage is not the issue. It is a crime against children and should not be tolerated regardless of whether 10% or 90% of the victims suffer damage. Knowing how the events are perceived by the victims at the time and how they are perceived in retrospect allows treatment modalities to be developed that will provide the best outcome. Telling a 15 year old adolescent that the sexual fling he has been having with a 25 year old woman is traumatic will be a difficult position to maintain.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 10:35:32 GMT -5
Rational said:
This to me is a bit removed from reality. Lets assume for a moment that things do go as Bert thinks they will, and it is no long "wrong" or illegal for an adult to have sex with a child. You seem to be equating legality and morality. Good to hear. People with a moral compass of their own will follow you as well. If the only reason an adult of not abusing a child is because of legal issues they are operating with a different set of moral standards that the one you seem to have. Sorry - this doesn't even deserve a response.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 10:41:55 GMT -5
Read what he wrote.....we protect them "because" its wrong. Who determines what is "wrong". This is an excellent question and raises all sorts of questions about morality, ethical behavior, universal moral codes, and a lot of other topics that would best be put in a thread of their own. I would think that knowingly leaving a possibly lethal live wire exposed where any unknowing person could happen upon it would raise the question of ethical behavior. Putting a pitcher of arsenic tainted water in a community refrigerator might raise the same questions. Of course it is not wrong to want to cool your arsenic solution on those hot summer nights...
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 2, 2014 10:53:37 GMT -5
Read what he wrote.....we protect them "because" its wrong. Who determines what is "wrong". This is an excellent question and raises all sorts of questions about morality, ethical behavior, universal moral codes, and a lot of other topics that would best be put in a thread of their own. I would think that knowingly leaving a possibly lethal live wire exposed where any unknowing person could happen upon it would raise the question of ethical behavior. Putting a pitcher of arsenic tainted water in a community refrigerator might raise the same questions. Of course it is not wrong to want to cool your arsenic solution on those hot summer nights... Lets take this a little further. Why someone left the electrical wire exposed could be many different reasons. If you've been in some homes in Mexico, you would have probably seen some. It wasn't because they were trying to damage anyone...but what does that matter. I protect my child from it because of the damage it could cause. On the other hand....in my state, its "wrong" to build a building without handicap accessability. If I go to a resturant, do I protect my children from that building? No. Why? Because there is no potential harm to them. We protect our kids from CSA because of the potential harm it could cause. "Wrong" or "right" is not the motivator for protecting them, (and I obviously agree that its wrong).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 11:59:20 GMT -5
Rational said:
This to me is a bit removed from reality. Lets assume for a moment that things do go as Bert thinks they will, and it is no long "wrong" or illegal for an adult to have sex with a child. This doesn't change anything for me. I will still continue to protect my child from the abuse. The above statement indicates that if Rational takes his grandchildren to a country where this is accepted, that he will no longer protect them. Of course it makes little sense. At the risk of misrepresenting some of the views, I think the logic is that it is wrong because the offender is doing something for his/her own gratification so that always makes it wrong whether it "may or may not cause" damage. As parents, we don't care about the gratification it "may or may not" give the offender. We only care that our children are not damaged by heinous acts of child abuse of any kind, including child sexual abuse. And we don't care if people like Clancy claim it "rarely" causes psychological damages. As parents, we know that any sexual abuse foisted on our children is going to cause damage and we don't care if it is short term or long term, we don't want any of it, or any part of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 12:04:17 GMT -5
Do you agree with Clancy that it rarely psychologically damages a child? She said that regardless of the outcome child abuse is wrong. Because a child is not damaged in any way does not mean that child sexual abuse is OK. Again, in this statement the blanket term child sexual abuse was used. Regardless of the outcome, short or long term, it is wrong. Wong even it it rarely (or never) causes physically or psychologically damage. Do you understand that she is not stating that child sexual abuse "rarely" causes psychological damage? That is the only reason why I can guess that you won't answer the question. All you have to say is that you don't want to answer the question for any or no reason. It doesn't matter to me except that it would be helpful for me to know that it is futile to ask these questions.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 12:09:16 GMT -5
Do you understand that she is not stating that child sexual abuse "rarely" causes psychological damage? IMO, this sentence (my emphasis) represents one of the reasons these discussions seem to go in endless circles!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 12:09:20 GMT -5
This is an excellent question and raises all sorts of questions about morality, ethical behavior, universal moral codes, and a lot of other topics that would best be put in a thread of their own. I would think that knowingly leaving a possibly lethal live wire exposed where any unknowing person could happen upon it would raise the question of ethical behavior. Putting a pitcher of arsenic tainted water in a community refrigerator might raise the same questions. Of course it is not wrong to want to cool your arsenic solution on those hot summer nights... Lets take this a little further. Why someone left the electrical wire exposed could be many different reasons. If you've been in some homes in Mexico, you would have probably seen some. It wasn't because they were trying to damage anyone...but what does that matter. I protect my child from it because of the damage it could cause. On the other hand....in my state, its "wrong" to build a building without handicap accessability. If I go to a resturant, do I protect my children from that building? No. Why? Because there is no potential harm to them. We protect our kids from CSA because of the potential harm it could cause. "Wrong" or "right" is not the motivator for protecting them, (and I obviously agree that its wrong). Exactly. Pure and simple it is wrong because of the damage it inflicts. As parents, we protect our kids from the damages, not for some other esoteric reason. The damages may vary, or they may be minimal. If a poor man is robbed of $100, it will cause more damage than a rich man being robbed of $1000. Either way, it is damaging. Child abuse is the same. It is wrong because of the damages, no matter how measurable they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 12:11:19 GMT -5
Do you understand that she is not stating that child sexual abuse "rarely" causes psychological damage? IMO, this sentence (my emphasis) represents one of the reasons these discussions seem to go in endless circles! Maybe in your view, but I am trying to clarify a view, nothing more. A simple and clear answer (like yes or no) then the circling stops right there. Trying to get a straight answer is definitely a dizzying process sometimes!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 12:17:30 GMT -5
IMO, this sentence (my emphasis) represents one of the reasons these discussions seem to go in endless circles! Maybe in your view, but I am trying to clarify a view, nothing more. A simple and clear answer (like yes or no) then the circling stops right there. Trying to get a straight answer is definitely a dizzying process sometimes! What you are not getting is that you bungled your sentence and said something I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to say. There are some very basic communication issues that get in the way. It includes bungling the reading of other peoples' words, too, IMO. I believe the sentence, "Do you not understand that she is ( not) stating that child sexual abuse "rarely" causes psychological damage?" would be more consistent with what you have been saying and how you have been saying it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 12:41:13 GMT -5
Lets take this a little further. Why someone left the electrical wire exposed could be many different reasons. Exactly. But if it was left knowing that someone might unknowingly be killed because of it still raises the question of ethical behavior.I have seen it in homes in SC. And I questioned the landlord about this very possibility and it was fixed the following day. Well, you were questioning whether it was right or wrong - the ethics of the situation.Right. You are protecting your children from being harmed by the unethical behavior of others. It is not wrong. It is illegal because of the building codes and the ADA. This is not a moral or ethical issue.I am not sure, but this makes little sense to me. What is the building going to do to your children?Sorry, but you will need to explain how a building following the local building codes and the ADA guidelines is to ever be considered a threat to children. So if it did not cause harm there would be no need to protect children from adults who want so use them, without causing harm, for their own sexual gratification?Not at all obvious. Your motivation is preventing harm. A mother was horrified to learn that the older adolescent that was looking after her son had been engaging in sexual activity for many months. When she asked her son why he had not reported it the reason was because he enjoyed it. This would have been OK with you? Of course, if you believe that any activity like this causes long term damage then you could probably say that the son was harmed. The problem is that adults are abusing children. It is wrong and should be prevented. In addition there are ramifications that also enter into the equation. Sometimes children are physically injured, even killed. There may be short/long term damage caused by any child abuse. There is collateral damage to others involved. It can destroy families. But regardless of the ancillary damage, it is just wrong and should be prevented.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 12:44:22 GMT -5
It is wrong because of the damages, no matter how measurable they are. So, no damage no wrong? I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 2, 2014 13:05:11 GMT -5
Lets take this a little further. Why someone left the electrical wire exposed could be many different reasons. Exactly. But if it was left knowing that someone might unknowingly be killed because of it still raises the question of ethical behavior. I have seen it in homes in SC. And I questioned the landlord about this very possibility and it was fixed the following day. Well, you were questioning whether it was right or wrong - the ethics of the situation. Right. You are protecting your children from being harmed by the unethical behavior of others. It is not wrong. It is illegal because of the building codes and the ADA. This is not a moral or ethical issue. I am not sure, but this makes little sense to me. What is the building going to do to your children? Sorry, but you will need to explain how a building following the local building codes and the ADA guidelines is to ever be considered a threat to children. So if it did not cause harm there would be no need to protect children from adults who want so use them, without causing harm, for their own sexual gratification? Not at all obvious. Your motivation is preventing harm. A mother was horrified to learn that the older adolescent that was looking after her son had been engaging in sexual activity for many months. When she asked her son why he had not reported it the reason was because he enjoyed it. This would have been OK with you? Of course, if you believe that any activity like this causes long term damage then you could probably say that the son was harmed. The problem is that adults are abusing children. It is wrong and should be prevented. In addition there are ramifications that also enter into the equation. Sometimes children are physically injured, even killed. There may be short/long term damage caused by any child abuse. There is collateral damage to others involved. It can destroy families. But regardless of the ancillary damage, it is just wrong and should be prevented. You never cease to amaze me.....I'm actually smiling right now.....How in the world does someone have a constructive conversation with you. I knew when I jumped into the conversation that it would turn like this..... wow, what a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 14:13:17 GMT -5
She said that regardless of the outcome child abuse is wrong. Because a child is not damaged in any way does not mean that child sexual abuse is OK. Again, in this statement the blanket term child sexual abuse was used. Regardless of the outcome, short or long term, it is wrong. Wong even it it rarely (or never) causes physically or psychologically damage. Do you understand that she is not stating that child sexual abuse "rarely" causes psychological damage? Yes I do. It was making the point that the end effects have nothing to do with the wrongness of child abuse.I have asked you to define your terms several times with no response. I even went so far as to loosely explain a case of CSA that I worked with and detail the abuse and environment as well as explain the possibilities of short term and long term outcomes and what factors were considered to be important.Define your terms and I will do my best to evaluate the situation and provide my opinion.I cannot answer a question that does not have enough data to form an opinion. I am not going to answer your questions regarding the short term or long term outcome of child sexual abuse, assuming you meant photographing nude toddlers, only to have you reply that no 10 year old who was forcibly raped would react in that way.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 14:23:32 GMT -5
You never cease to amaze me.....I'm actually smiling right now.....How in the world does someone have a constructive conversation with you. I knew when I jumped into the conversation that it would turn like this..... wow, what a waste of time. Too bad. You each (you and Clearday) have common ground with Rational. I don't see how Rational has been unreasonable. I see traps in maintaining that the objection to sexual engagement of adults with children is strictly about protecting children from harm. Starting with the premise that any sexual engagement of an adult with a child is morally repugnant is the sturdiest position and one that allows the possibility that not all engagement has long term consequences....or in some cases, not even short term consequences for a child while at the same time, maintaining a solid position that any form of CSA is morally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 14:24:55 GMT -5
You never cease to amaze me.....I'm actually smiling right now.....How in the world does someone have a constructive conversation with you. I knew when I jumped into the conversation that it would turn like this..... wow, what a waste of time. I know. It would be so much easier if I just pretended to know what a building that meets local building codes and complies with the ADA has to do with not being a threat to children but I really have no idea of the point you are trying to make. I could have said that if the people in Mexico all leave lethal electric wires where the unsuspecting might be killed is not an ethical problem because, after all, everyone does it. "Because everyone else does it" has never been the solution to moral and ethical questions. It would probably be easier if I were just to agree with what you said and provide the answers you expect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 14:32:19 GMT -5
Maybe in your view, but I am trying to clarify a view, nothing more. A simple and clear answer (like yes or no) then the circling stops right there. Trying to get a straight answer is definitely a dizzying process sometimes! What you are not getting is that you bungled your sentence and said something I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to say. There are some very basic communication issues that get in the way. It includes bungling the reading of other peoples' words, too, IMO. I believe the sentence, "Do you not understand that she is ( not) stating that child sexual abuse "rarely" causes psychological damage?" would be more consistent with what you have been saying and how you have been saying it. I wrote it exactly as I meant it so I prefer there not to be any editing. I was trying to get rational's understanding, not trying to allege that he didn't understand something. If you need further explanation of the meaning of the sentence, please let me know and I will try again. Your allegations of "bungling" suggests hostility rather than a genuine attempt to understand the meaning......I hope not. Now, how about your opinion? Do you believe that child sexual abuse rarely causes physical damage? Do you believe that child sexual abuse rarely causes psychological damage? How frequently do you think damage occurs on reported abuses?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 14:35:48 GMT -5
Do you understand that she is not stating that child sexual abuse "rarely" causes psychological damage? Yes I do. It was making the point that the end effects have nothing to do with the wrongness of child abuse.I have asked you to define your terms several times with no response. I even went so far as to loosely explain a case of CSA that I worked with and detail the abuse and environment as well as explain the possibilities of short term and long term outcomes and what factors were considered to be important.Define your terms and I will do my best to evaluate the situation and provide my opinion.I cannot answer a question that does not have enough data to form an opinion. I am not going to answer your questions regarding the short term or long term outcome of child sexual abuse, assuming you meant photographing nude toddlers, only to have you reply that no 10 year old who was forcibly raped would react in that way. Pick your definitions and answer if you are so inclined. Surely this isn't complicated. If you are not inclined to answer, that's fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 14:39:25 GMT -5
You never cease to amaze me.....I'm actually smiling right now.....How in the world does someone have a constructive conversation with you. I knew when I jumped into the conversation that it would turn like this..... wow, what a waste of time. Too bad. You each (you and Clearday) have common ground with Rational. I don't see how Rational has been unreasonable. I see traps in maintaining that the objection to sexual engagement of adults with children is strictly about protecting children from harm. Starting with the premise that any sexual engagement of an adult with a child is morally repugnant is the sturdiest position and one that allows the possibility that not all engagement has long term consequences....or in some cases, not even short term consequences for a child while at the same time, maintaining a solid position that any form of CSA is morally wrong. Please explain why it is "morally repugnant" even if there are never any damages since you are taking consideration of damages out of the equation. Would it still be morally repugnant if it was proven that sex between adults and children were beneficial to children?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 15:01:43 GMT -5
Please explain why it is "morally repugnant" even if there are never any damages since you are taking consideration of damages out of the equation. I did not, and would not say that there are never any damages. I don't know what to think about the way you misconstrue things that others have said. I cannot tell if it is on purpose or if you really don't know that you are misquoting people. You do it regularly. If you cannot see how you have twisted my words, then there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 15:15:13 GMT -5
[ Now, how about your opinion? Do you believe that child sexual abuse rarely causes physical damage? Do you believe that child sexual abuse rarely causes psychological damage? How frequently do you think damage occurs on reported abuses? I gave my opinion about questions like this earlier today.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 15:18:34 GMT -5
There is nothing a predator wants more than a confused victim. Confused victims cannot be relied upon to use good judgment or testify reliably, and that is a trauma in itself. I think a compliant victim is more the case. The confusion is a result of attention and activity that is not necessarily unpleasant but is also not understood. Not many children, for example, are shocked by the sight of a person exposing themselves but may question why anyone would keep making themselves naked. They may even ask their parents who might react with much more emotion than the child expected or can understand. More confusion. But it still is considered child sexual abuse. But it's the confused child that doesn't tell on the abuser. They also know the consequences of their crime and they're smart enough to avoid the kids who have the wherewithal to tell on them when the deed is done. But I do agree with you in a way, to witness someone simply exposing himself I always found more hilarious than frightening. Aren't children taught to get naked to have a bath? What I really don't understand is a grown woman being traumatized by a person exposing himself. A good sense of humor can quickly remove the cause of any trauma in that kind of situation, I have found.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 15:19:29 GMT -5
I did not, and would not say that there are never any damages. I don't know what to think about the way you misconstrue things that others have said. I cannot tell if it is on purpose or if you really don't know that you are misquoting people. You do it regularly. If you cannot see how you have twisted my words, then there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you. You are probably right, I don't see much point in carrying on. My questions are genuine and intended to gain an understanding without any desire to twist words. If you can't see that, then any discussion will almost certainly be poisoned in ill will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 15:20:30 GMT -5
[ Now, how about your opinion? Do you believe that child sexual abuse rarely causes physical damage? Do you believe that child sexual abuse rarely causes psychological damage? How frequently do you think damage occurs on reported abuses? I gave my opinion about questions like this earlier today. I missed it, sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 15:30:59 GMT -5
I did not, and would not say that there are never any damages. I don't know what to think about the way you misconstrue things that others have said. I cannot tell if it is on purpose or if you really don't know that you are misquoting people. You do it regularly. If you cannot see how you have twisted my words, then there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you. You are probably right, I don't see much point in carrying on. My questions are genuine and intended to gain an understanding without any desire to twist words. If you can't see that, then any discussion will almost certainly be poisoned in ill will. No ill will. I do find discussions with you frustrating at times. If your questions are sincere, then I am baffled at how you misconstrue my words and attribute to me things that I have not said. Perhaps you really cannot see it. I agree that there is no point in continuing the discussion.
|
|