No, it assumes that coercing, manipulating and exposing a child to sexual activity before they are emotionally ready to handle it by an adult is abuse. And legally speaking, despite the protest of some kids, is rape. Children having sexual encounters with other children might gain some leeway, because childhood curiosity is a thing. But the effects of a child being exposed to such behavior has been studied. Lack of trust, apathy, hyper sexuality, lack of self esteem etc. Not to mention all the mind games a child has to beat, depending on the specific grooming method/s implemented.
I am speaking generally, of course. Easier to discuss.
But fine if you want I will add in the caveat that I am speaking specifically of children who have negative consequences stemming from sexual activity with an adult which affects me in the sense that their productivity is affected negatively. Happy?
And yes, if an adult male or female is sexually abused it affects productivity. So we're clear that sexual abuse no matter the age is bad, right?
You missed my point and I feel ignored it. What you are saying is IMO not different than assuming all homosexual activity is exposing participants to abuse, perversion and bad judgment.
I don't believe that, but I also don't see a way for you to get around what comes off as equally puritanical and not aligning with my experience, nor anyone I'm familiar with experience. I would venture to guess that minors (say age 14 to 17) engage in sexual behavior far more often than not. As in, for every minor that makes it to 18 being a total virgin (never making out, not going to 2nd base or further), there are 20 who do not. Thus, 80% (or more) of people are somehow both totally messed up, but society is functioning the way it has and seemingly doing okay.
I also think why would we ever, as adults, even consider teaching kids about sexuality or giving them condoms if we truly thought them engaging in it would be highly detrimental to their being? Why wouldn't we always be advocating for the most puritanical approach to minors and sex and say that instead of considering using a condom it is always righteous to abstain, with no exceptions?
I recall when I was in college and editor of school newspaper was doing survey asking what is best way to prevent pregnancy among young adults and teens. By the time the editor got to me, "supplying condoms" was winning and I said how about abstinence? And that lead to semi-heated discussion, but I really did my best to say all the other things on the list are fine and ought to be considerations, yet if asking for the best approach, that really ought to be on the list. And for her, the editor, that was deemed so 'impractical' that it didn't deserve to be a consideration.
That strikes me as opposite of what you are conveying. And yet, I feel I'm being consistent.
By the logic you are using, I wouldn't think the age is what makes for emotional readiness. If it is truly the primary criteria, I would honestly go with age around 30 at the very lowest. 40 strikes me as most reasonable.
But given how little you are budging from what I see as simply bizarre take on the situation, I'm not sure what there is to discuss. It is like talking to fundie Christian who repeats each time, regardless of points being made, that homosexuality is inherently perverse, and wondering when that will be acknowledged.
Wait what? How is following the logic of negative psychological consequences affecting children who are groomed for sexual activity (remember strictly speaking of these specific children) related to two adults who are not subject to any grooming whatsoever? That doesn't make any sense.
You're adding in grooming. You're filtering it all through the abuse perspective. I could relate it to adult sex, rather easily, but not sure you'd be able to hold the discussion given the assumption of automatic abuse.
You just arbitrarily proclaimed gay sex as damaged. Why not do the same for heterosexual sex?
I did it for homosexuality to make a point. If it helps make the point for you I have zero issues with eliminating the homosexual point and saying instead that it is like arguing that all heterosexuals who engage in sex, are inherently damaged. There, that for me, was easy. It's still the same point.
Psychology has long studied the affects sex with an adult has on children and there are definitive negative consequences. It doesn't necessarily even have to include violence or threats. Grooming techniques include focusing on orgasms as something to "like" or negative reinforcement for failing to live up to the sexual demands of the pedophile. Such studies have not proven any negative affects for adults engaging in sexual acts of their own actual free will, regardless of it being straight or gay or multisexed or whatever the hell they're into.
I'm thinking you can find studies to back up what you are getting across, but as my very first post on this tangent stated and what I've brought up numerous times, you'll likely go with research about abuse. Find me the study of the 18.5 year old engaging in sexual activity with the 17 year old and how psychologically damaging that is to the 17 year old, while seemingly (magically) having no impact on the 18.5 year old.
Anyway I don't think gay relationships are that imbalanced to begin with. And even if some are, the same can be said of heterosexual relationships. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Agreed. But it's not the relationship we are talking about. It's the sex. Obviously (I hope) you wouldn't say an adult being in a relationship with a child is inherently bad or imbalanced. So, it's the sex, and then even there it's assumptions about how that occurs, what transpires, plus what are the makeup of the individuals. Lot easier to make your point with 13 year olds or younger engaging with 25 year olds or older. And easier if it is filtered through prism of manipulation and eventual abuse. Same thing can be done with homosexual, heterosexual sexual liaisons between adults. Like a 55 year old non convicted sexual predator (think Bill Clinton) with 22 year old who has never done anything but say making out, is arguably not emotionally ready for what might transpire between them sexually. If that ends in abuse, do we then assume that no two adults can handle sexual relationships? Could even go the other way. Say a 45 year old male who has lived his entire life as a heterosexual person decides to explore what he thinks is his bisexual side. Mostly just curious. And goes to the place a friend said is 'place for that' and comes across a 23 year old male that manipulates him into sex. I can be fairly explicit if need be. Oh and let's say 'that place' is known to be a place where 'aggressive gay types go.' But the 45 year old doesn't know this. Is that person truly emotionally ready for what they might encounter?
A little hyperbolic don't you think? There is a clear difference between getting a cranky child to do their homework against their will and (technically forcing them) to orgasm against their will. The former might elicit an angry or upset response, the latter will open up all sorts of confusing and sometimes conflicting emotions for the child. Often when they're at an age where emotionally speaking they aren't equipped to properly deal with the consequences of yet. Most kids can deal with simple emotions like anger or being sad. Conflicting emotions? Feeling numb? Feeling hate and love? Trying to figure out if they want to "betray" their abuser? Guilt? Shame? These are emotions that we typically try to outright avoid eliciting in children. Even when punishing a child.
The hyperbole was certainly warranted if you need to compare cranky child doing their homework with forcing child into orgasm against their will. Is it ever right to force an adult into orgasm against their will? How about we take orgasm off the table, and get back to what OP was asking about, but was not specific about?
Well I'm not actually. I am referring to children, not pubescents, not teenagers, not even minors. Children. As in prepubescent children under the age of 12. Pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children after all. Now there are children who are "sexually abused" by an adult and are perfectly functioning adults without any negative consequences. Again I am strictly speaking of those children who experience negative consequences due to sexual interactions with an adult.
And I purposely worded this tangent with minors. So, if you are using a filter that greatly changes what I started with, then perhaps you could back up and deal with what I've been talking about all along?
As to the OP, fine. I agree should have been more specific. I should have been more specific last post. I apologize.
That's cool, or appreciated.
I'm really not trying to make a case for adults having sex with kids. I'm saying the way in which the subject is treated helps understand why some people have a problem with 2 adults (gay or straight) getting freaky with each other. Just as many people assume adult to minor getting freaking is inherently problematic (based almost entirely on their own framing of how that must appear), so do some people assume homosexual adults getting freaky is inherently problematic (based on almost entirely on their own framing of how that must appear).
Also wish to note that my responses at top of this post don't take this acknowledgment by you into consideration. I thought about updating them, but given that this is around our 5th or more exchange on this tangent, I feel it is reasonable to let that stand.
