Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with the families decisions in this matter. I've said this clearly. And I dont agree with his behavior as being outside the bounds of normal behavior, considering his lifestyle (lack of outside contact). He didnt get to learn about sexuality on the back of the school bus, listening to the older kids talking. He didnt get to hang around the beach/pool with his buddies; woowooing over scantily dressed girls. Poor kid was deprived alright. Developmentally delayed even. Not on the same maturity level as his peers. Not average at all. And not a criminal.

Probably only experience with sex was watching the barn cats screwing.

Poor kid.. He just wanted to touch a boobie!! And Yes, I think your position on this particular case is laughable.

Statistically its unlikely. But if that isnt good enough for you, his sisters (two of them) have come forward and said it didnt happen again. The police report from 2006 said the sisters (all of them) said it didnt happen again. Are you accusing them of being liars? You cant trust the 'victim' testimony? They told what he had done before just fine.. They werent in there telling the cops in 2006 "I dont remember that".

Um yeah right.. whatever... little manchurian candidates all of 'em...

Then Why Did He Stop?

And it aint only little quiverful movement kids making these mistakes.

Thats how obsure (and thats being nice) the reference is. Ownership culture. scoff...

Yawn... Their lifestyle wasnt about a 'rape culture' and they sure as hell didnt promote Josh's behavior. Your claims are unbelievable.

I had it sorted out before I posted. Recidivism does not apply in the case of Josh's behavior.

If I shoplift 20 times I am not recidivist. Even if my parents caught me the 10th time and I do it anyways I am just an asshole kid who wont listen. I get busted by the cops and given a stern talking to and let go because he doesnt want to mess up my record, I am not recidivist. And if I get busted again hes gonna haul me in because he gave me that second chance, I still am not recidivist. After I go through whatever the court decides and I shoplift again, then I am recidivist.

Josh did not re-offend after being sent away. And he wasnt talked to by a cop until after he was sent away. He does it again I will change my position; that would be recidivism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I want you to talk to my kid about something that happened in the past is not

at some time in the future.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But minimizing abuse of children is normal in our society.

While normal rivalries with siblings can encourage healthy competition, the line between healthy relations and abuse is crossed when one child is consistently the victim of another and the aggression is intended to cause harm and humiliation, said John V. Caffaro, a clinical psychologist and the author of “Sibling Abuse Trauma.” Parents who fail to intervene, play favorites or give their children labels that sow divisions — like “the smart one” and “the athlete” — can inadvertently encourage conflict.

Nationwide, sibling violence is by far the most common form of family violence, occurring four to five times as frequently as spousal or parental child abuse, Dr. Caffaro said. According to some studies, nearly half of all children have been punched, kicked or bitten by a sibling, and roughly 15 percent have been repeatedly attacked. But even the most severe incidents are underreported because families are loath to acknowledge them, dismissing slaps and punches as horseplay and bullying as boys just being boys, he said.

“Our society tends to minimize child-on-child violence in general,” he added. “We have these ideas that if you’re hurt by a child it’s less injurious than if you’re hurt by an adult, but the data don’t support that.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/when-the-bully-is-a-sibling/

What motivates so many to misrepresent the relative nature of sibling violence?

In the same sense that Josh is a child molester, all who physically and verbally inflict any degree of violence on their siblings are child abusers. For some reason people don’t tend to get so angry about that.

No, what’s puzzling here is the nature of your game. You seem to have the need to minimize the offensive nature of other forms of sibling abuse in order to maximize the offensive nature of sibling sexual abuse. Why the obsession with the impact of sibling sexual interaction when in reality it pales in significance to the nonsexual? Is it ideology, prudishness, or both that compromise your objectivity in these matters?

Of all the ways listed below that kids in Arkansas can and do illegally abuse their siblings, why should sexual abuse be given special treatment?

a. Identifying Child Maltreatment

The Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act defines “child maltreatment” as “abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, sexual exploitation or abandonment.” Ark. Code Ann. § 12-18-103(6). The law further defines each category of child maltreatment and it should be consulted whenever maltreatment is suspected. See, Ark. Code Ann. § 12-18-103. Examples of child maltreatment include, but are not limited to:

Abuse – extreme or repeated cruelty, conduct that creates a serious risk of death or permanent injury, injury to the child’s detriment, injury at variance with the history given, any non-accidental physical injury including throwing, kicking, burning, biting or cutting a child, striking a child with a closed fist, shaking a child, striking a child on the face or head, interfering with a child’s breathing, pinching, biting or striking a child in the genital area, tying a child to a fixed or heavy object or tying a child’s limbs together, permitting a child to ingest a poisonous or mood altering substance including but not limited to alcohol, illegal drugs, and over the counter or prescription medications in improper amounts, and reporting fictitious illnesses to medical care providers.

Sexual Abuse – attempted, solicited or completed sexual intercourse, deviate sexual activity or sexual contact, indecent exposure, voyeurism, forced viewing or participation in pornography or live sexual activity or prostitution. Sexual contact includes any act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through clothing of the sex organs, buttocks or anus of a person or the breast of a female, or the encouraging of child to touch an offender in a sexual manner.

Neglect – failure or refusal to take reasonable action to prevent abuse, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child when the person knows or has reasonable cause to know that the child is or has been abused; refusal to provide necessary, food, clothing, shelter, medical care or education, failure to appropriate supervise a child such that the child is left alone at an inappropriate age or under circumstances putting the child at risk of harm.

Sexual Exploitation – permitting or encouraging a child to participate in prostitution or obscene photography or filming.

http://kidz.arumc.org/safe-sanctuaries/arkansas-law/

If parents and mandatory reporters aren’t universally going to the authorities over nonsexual abuse, why expect more urgency for the sexual variety?

 

Capracus... are... are you REALLY suggesting that a sibling scrap (such as a simple fight over a toy) is somehow equivalent to sexually abusing/ molesting your younger sibling... that using that position of power as "big brother" to perpetrate such an act is somehow the same as two siblings fighting in the back seat?

 

What, really? We're supposed to take that seriously?

• • •​

Yeah, you're not helping yourself with that one.

What, really? We're supposed to take that seriously?

No, seriously, what does that question mean? I live in an area where mandatory reporters report all of that. Sure, I can imagine there are places where the mandatory reporters are less vigilant, but, to the one, that might be something about a particular community. To the other, I don't know, how would you feel? There is a reason sexual violations have a certain primal power. Part of this is inherent, part acquired. The inherent is pretty straightforward. Have you ever been in a fight? Unsettling, to be certain. But, yeah, in truth, most days it beats a fist up the ass. You know, unless you're into that sort of thing. And then add in, with no irony whatsoever despite the temptation, that we're also talking about a family that grotesquely exaggerates sex and sexuality, sexualizes young children, and teaches such victims they have sinned while conspiring to protect and empower the abuser. Now, maybe your question involves some sort of invocation of kicking shins, or something, but honestly, it's pretty easy to tell the difference between normal socialization between peers and intercohort exploitation.

Yes, if Josh Duggar, at age fifteen, had been repeatedly physically assaulting his five year-old sister in a nonsexual manner―say, kicking her in the shins―this, too, would be exceptionally problematic.

But as long as you wish everyone to go fishing for red herrings in order to help you defend child molestation, yeah, it's going to stand out as kind of creepy, dude. Part of it, really, is that there comes a point at which people just get creeped out trying to study it. But think of it this way: Fifty years later, it still has an effect. I can see that in the behavior of people in my own life. And yes, it's a different effect than other violence. And part of your error here seems to be that you're chasing after some sort of clean, simple resolution when there is none. Life in general is out of the frying pan and into the fire; these issues only exacerbate that kind of transition.

We've known about violence being passed on through generations; the long-running debate about "corporal punishment" reminds that nonsexual abuse is still very, very urgent. The best explanation I can figure for your behavior is a classic misapplication of "question everything". But it's a political thing with you, too, so you started with the wrong questions.

Child abuse in general sets patterns that will echo throughout life, increasing an individual's chances of experiencing or inflicting further harm. Sexual abuse even more so, and pointedly. Furthermore, in addition to the statistical outcome, I can recall not so long ago that anti-gay poltical argumentation used to speak about natural instinct, and men and women. And while their error was in presuming nature to be absolutely consistent―that every person is born inherently heterosexual―it seems quite strange that here we are in an issue where young females have been exploited, and now we are expected to forget the basic connection between psyche and sexual behavior. The thing is that I'm not a woman, so I can't explain what those things mean to females, but at the same time, the amount of urogenital detail required to answer this bizarre skepticism suggests that's actually the point of the inquiries. Just like your earlier perversions of the question, we're not about to dissect degrees of harm. This is in the eye of the abused.

And if you really are so determined to help build a society in which sexual molestation is no big deal, this isn't the way to go about it. After all, consider how urgent sexual issues were for this pious family. Then again, if we start from a more objective assessment, that grooming females to be sexually exploited is actually a fundamental purpose of ownership culture, especially as we see it manifest in this American post-Christian iteration―Promise Keepers, purity balls, expelling young women from school for not being girly enough, Christian re-education camps for gay youth, Quiverfull, &c.―the behavior of individuals involved actually starts to make a certain amount of sense. That is to say, while society has its own reasons for urgent focus on sexual exploitation of children, so also do the Duggars have their own reasons for urgent focus on sex, sexuality, and the sexualization of children.

Like I said, the problem within this ownership culture is not that Josh Duggar treated a female that way, but that he treated the wrong female that way. This is why it is very important to give some focus to the overarching cultural influences contributing to this debacle.

Perhaps you object to the urgency society in general feels regarding sexual abuse, but, strangely, you're trying to defend an outlook that deliberately escalates that urgency even more, because grooming young women to be sexually exploited is what that subculture exists for.

You are so confused, contorted, and self-contradictory it occurs to wonder if you're thinking things through at all, or just plowing forward again in search of a new turducken.

 

Are you really trying to suggest that instead of touching the breasts of his sisters through their clothes as they slept, it would’ve’ been preferable for Josh to engage in activity with them that included throwing, kicking, burning, biting or cutting a child, striking a child with a closed fist, shaking a child, striking a child on the face or head, interfering with a child’s breathing, pinching, biting or striking a child in the genital area, tying a child to a fixed or heavy object or tying a child’s limbs together, permitting a child to ingest a poisonous or mood altering substance including but not limited to alcohol, illegal drugs? You know all that stuff that not only siblings, but children in general commonly engage in while growing up. I mean listen to you, trying to minimize the potential danger of physical violence between siblings, shame on you.

The thing is that many mandatory reporters are also parents, who like the rest of us parents grew up in households where varying degrees of sibling violence, coercion and exploitation were considered just normal socialization, so while they might in the course of occupational duty pursue cases of more blatant abuse, off the job they tend to act just like the rest of us. As to your fight vs. fisting conundrum, we can come up with all kinds of scenarios where some low level sexual contact would be greatly preferred to a sever beating.

I’ll bet this soccer ref would’ve rather taken this fist up his ass.

Teran punched Ricardo Portillo, 46, after the referee in the April 27 youth soccer match called a foul on Teran. After Portillo issued him a yellow card, Teran responded by punching Portillo "in the rear jaw area with a closed fist," charging documents state.


Doctors later told investigators that Portillo suffered a traumatic brain injury. He remained in a coma for a week before he died.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...s-teen-who-admits-killing-referee.html?pg=all

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Josh had occasionally engaged in some degree physical assault on his sisters over the years, I know I did with my four sisters. And like I did, I’m sure Josh learned to eventually control the impulse to engage in such behavior.

You’re unwilling to examine issues of abuse because the details of such creep you out? I had a girlfriend who went through years of sexual abuse as a child, and she had no problem discussing the details of her abuse and its relative significance to other childhood traumas. If you can’t rationally and objectively delve into these issues, why bother with the topic at all? Unless of course you’re simply here as an ideological preacher rather than an objective investigator.

Sexual abuse even more so; why? Certainly not from any objective evaluation you’ve presented comparing the relative offensive value of abuse and its resulting outcomes. You said it yourself, you can’t fathom what sexual abuse does to the female psyche, and if you where honest you’d say the same of any category of abuse, regardless of the gender of the victim.

Oh, so that’s my mission, to build a society in which sexual molestation is no big deal. So by objectively comparing sexual abuse to other forms abuse, that makes me an advocate for sexual abuse. By such reasoning, since you give sexual abuse more gravity than other forms of abuse, you’re an advocate for manslaughter.

I’m not confused in the slightest, at least about the nature of abuse, because at least unlike you, I’m willing to see it for what it is, not what some dogmatic assumption says it must be.

 

No, actually. Intercohort abuse has stronger implications under this circumstance.

If we're talking about two children within an age cohort, there is a great amount of kicking, biting, scratching, and other stuff that is just part of normal socialization.

Even playing "doctor" or "house".

I would suggest that your attempt to confuse normal socialization within an age cohort and intercohort exploitation is actually rather quite dangerous, but that's really nothing new about your excremental view of humanity. Indeed, the danger you present to communities is the only reason people pay attention to you. Like your rape advocacy. It's really stupid, and I would rather not give a damn about it at all. But you're a dangerous human being, Capracus, and advocating danger unto others.

What do you think the odds are that if he had, in fact, taken a fist up the ass, he would be expected to apologize to his abuser?

Your attempt to erase such distinctions is a hallmark of your open rape advocacy, Capracus.

It's just that when someone comes up with such an extraordinary position in defense of child molestation as you have, Capracus, and then pretends established, recognized social science is somehow an outlier, others start wondering what it is you're after. To wit, maybe you just want people to start talking about details of sexual abuse so you can get off.

When you can't even be bothered to do basic research on the impacts of child sexual abuse, but then want to pretend that entire corpus is bogus so you can pretend a teenager molesting little girls is no different than two five year-olds having a playground argument, you are not presenting objective anything. You're just making excuses for, and thereby advocating, child sexual abuse. Yes, Capracus, you are a child abuse advocate. You are a rape advocate. You are a danger to your fellow human being.

I can only encourage you to seek immediate psychiatric help.

 

You’re f***ing hilarious, you portray physical violence between children as acceptable normal socialization and you call me dangerous? Ha!

Why, for intentionally sitting on his fist? Or leaving it covered in shit? Any more brilliant questions?

Because making qualitative assessments of various forms of abuse is advocacy for abuse. More pearls of wisdom from Tiassa.

If you’re going to quantify the offensive nature of abuse then you must fully describe how the details of abuse relate to the details of the damage it causes. How much pleasure can Tiassa get from watching children batter each other if the details are censored?

Unlike you, I don’t wake up and put on ideological blinders each day, so I fully understand the potential for damage from all forms of abusive behavior, that’s why I don’t advocate it. I also expect abusive behaviors to be objectively and consistently evaluated in relation to their potential for harm and remediation, something unfortunately you don’t deem necessary.

No, it was she who informed me that the coercion, manipulation and ridicule that stemmed from regular social situations were far worse than the unwanted sexual activity.

It’s you who are demonstrating the confusion. I said that degrees of sexual abuse are comparable to degrees of other forms of abuse that are not as aggressively addressed, and that it’s not fair to expect special treatment for one over the other. As for external intervention, I simply stated the facts as to when most people feel compelled to resort to it, regardless of its ideal suitability or legality.

And please show me where I praised a pedophile. If you’re referring to this quote then it’s just more confusion on your part.

The only thing being praised in that statement was Josh’s luck, not the trooper or his actions. Did you notice the Jim Bob comment about the advantage of an alternate strategy? No, of course you didn’t, because it’s not proper fodder for your brand of demonization.

 

Other children are labeled sex offenders for such non-coercive or nonviolent and age-appropriate activities as “playing doctor,” youthful pranks such as exposing one’s buttocks, and non-coercive teen sex.
Subjecting children to sex offender laws originally developed for adult offenders is both unnecessary from a public safety perspective and harmful to the child.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/7.htm

By then, sex offender restrictions had mushroomed in a way that was starting to trouble Wetterling. In the years since Jacob's abduction, she had devoted her life to children's safety. But the more she learned about the nature of child sexual abuse, the more she felt like these laws simply didn't get to the root of the problem, and actually made it worse in ways that were hard for most people to grasp.

http://www.citypages.com/news/patty-wetterling-questions-sex-offender-laws-6766534

5 part series:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...stry_laws_have_our_policies_gone_too_far.html

 

Some degree of violence is expected between children. This is a normal part of the social development of a human being.

Then again, this is also how we know you're trolling; you're either being completely dishonest or else you are so ignorant of the subject you should think thrice before opining.

For failing to guard his virtue? You know, like we've seen of Quiverfull? As we've been discussing in this topic?

One thing that would probably help you, Capracus, is if you stopped making these threads pertaining to sex and gender issues so damn personal. What's your stake in all this? Why do you need people to believe a playground scrap between kindergarteners is the same as intercohort sexual abuse?

Read a book someday. Something having to do with developmental psychology. Part of the problem is that your inquiry is so ghastly in its pretentious ignorance that it's really rather hard to know where to start. Your argument presupposes against everything observable; you have made extraordinary assertions and refuse to back them.

Show me a study that says intercohort sexual abuse is no different than intracohort socialization and differentiation.

Start with that. Give us some hint that you're actually being logical.

Problem is, you can't. And I think you already know that.

Ever actually been a parent, Capracus?

Are you some sort of child counselor?

Do you have any experiential clue how to relate your posts to a genuine living experience?

The thing is that both academically and practically you are relying on extraordinary propositions.

Yes, that happens sometimes. Learn some psychology.

The Duggars, for instance, specifically groom young women for sexual abuse and exploitation; it's part of the overt phallocentrism of ownership culture in the United States. With others, though, well, to each situation its own circumstances. You can psychoanalyze your one case for the rest of your life and never unravel it entirely; this is part of the damage that sexual abuse and exploitation does. But I doubt you can provide enough information about that one case to make the psychoanalysis of any use.

What circumstances can you document lending to what she told you? Otherwise you have one case, and virtually nothing can be extrapolated from that.

And a fifteen year old kicking a five year-old in the shins would be worrying as well, suggestive of a larger problem. But neither would it present the immediate danger that sexual abuse presents.

 

Some degree of all behavior is expected between children, violence and sexual contact included. Whether or not these behaviors are defined as normal or socially tolerated, they all have the potential to constitute abuse if chronically practiced.

Any positions that contradict your myopic soapbox narrative eventually get branded as trolling, big surprise. I sometimes honestly apply the same irrational standard of logic used by you to mischaracterize my views to evaluate your own. If you don’t like it then stop doing it yourself.

The soccer ref had a choice of a fisting or death from a single punch. I can’t think of anything more virtuous in this case than agreeing to be the fistee.

Because sibling abuse isn’t just about sex and gender, and you’ve taken an example that happens to include those qualities and given it disproportional representation. A playground scrap can embody abusive qualities, as can age inappropriate sexual touching. Without contextual detail, one doesn’t necessarily trump the other in terms of potential for harm.

Speaking of weakness in the logic department, your cohort question is a prime example. Intracohort socialization, which would embody what you describe as age appropriate physical violence, which if practiced chronically becomes age appropriate physical abuse. Intercohort sexual contact, which can embody age inappropriate sexual contact, which if practiced chronically becomes age inappropriate sexual abuse. You keep coming up with these false distinctions. Abuse is abuse no matter how you package it; if your study of abuse were more comprehensive you’d already realise this.

Yes, two grown children who are presently different genders.

No.

Yes

No, I’m not.

This sometimes happens? This type of abuse is far more common than the sexual variety, and thus has a greater potential for personal and social harm.

Wow, you’re amazing! How did you do it? Hack their e-mail and phone messages, and plant surveillance devices in their home? Because I’m quite sure they would have no recollection of ever being interviewed by you about the intimate details of their lives. Please don’t tell me this psychological assessment was derived solely from various media sources, because if that’s the case the next thing we can expect from you is IQ estimates of the Duggars based on cranial measurements of their online images.

Unlike your armchair psychoanalysis fueled by media punditry, the details of the case I referenced were substantiated by other involved parties, so it wasn’t some limited perspective of events. And the abusive behaviors encountered in this case are exemplified in documented cases of abuse in general, so it’s not just an isolated case.

No, a better analogy would be a 15 year old boy touching a 5 year old girl’s shin. But let’s look at your proposition that a touch to the breast or vagina would be worse than kick to the shin. If a123 lb boy kicked the shin of a 40 lb girl, what sort of physical and emotional trauma could you imagine resulting from such an act? I can imagine a lot. Please describe how the mere touch of a 5 year old girl’s breast and vagina would cause comparable damage.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Part the First: When Doves Child Molestation Advocates Cry

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

At the point that a nine-year age difference becomes irrelevant, it's a question of whether or not one wishes to consent to violate incest laws. That is to say, when she's eighteen and he's twenty-seven.

That you refuse to acknowledge this when trying to apply intracohort socialization as a justification for defending child molestation and the deliberate protection and empowerment of the abuser is problematic.

Two notes: I get that a lot, as we all know, and here's the problem with your complaint―You're being exceptionally irrational in your defense of child molestation. You've heard of LaPlace? You know, extraordinarhy evidence for extraordinary claims. The problem is that you want people to presuppose the entire literary corpus on child abuse is wrong, that we need to start from new presuppositions, and you're not really helping your case by providing useful evidence. None. You do not get to turn the whole world upside down just to feel more comfortable about your advocacy of child molestation.

What's the matter, rape advocate? Have to change the context of the discussion in order to pretend to have a point?

Nine year age difference; fourteen on five. Serial predatory behavior. Cultural empowerment and familial protection of a child molester. You're trying to pretend your general fantasy of how to abuse a little girl and get away with it actually represents the situation we are considering. Without contextual detail? Look at how many times you recast the situation while ignoring contextual details.

The dishonesty you show in your advocacy of child molestation is rather quite unsettling. Are you trying to make yourself sound like you're dangerous to children? Or, God help them, is it not really a pretense?

Would you be so kind as to clarify:

"Intercohort sexual contact, which can embody age inappropriate sexual contact, which if practiced chronically becomes age inappropriate sexual abuse."​

You did note that you raised two children, presently different genders.

As a parent, if you found a fourteen year old on your five year old, how much of that contact would you allow before deciding it was being "practiced chronically" and therefore "becomes age inappropriate sexual abuse"?

Are you able to clarify that point?

If you're not relying on extraordiary propositions, the preceding request for clarification should be very, very easy for you to explain rationally.

What an interesting sleight.

It is well documented that abuse survivors respond differently to what happened and what is happening around them in any moment. That is to say, I doubt you could give us enough detail to properly analyze what she meant. What she told you isn't exactly unheard of, but in order for anyone else to comprehend what it actually means in functional practice is most likely beyond your capacity to communicate. That last isn't intended as a sleight; I can comprehend reasonably well events and circumstances I have experienced, but I cannot so precisely define for you what my friend was going through or how her logical processes worked.

Think for a moment of the Gay Fray. Indeed, yesterday, some NFL player in Minnesota, responded to the Obergefell decision by sarcastically suggesting gay fathers will marry their six year-old sons. It's an old point, and actually a dangerous one, because its only real effect is to either normalize child abuse by elevating it to a socially acceptable level, or suggest the dimensions and orientation of an individual's focus. No, really, on that last point, it is indeed a bit unsettling to stop and think about their outlooks on children and sex. You've probably seen me make a versioh of the point before, that the last quarter-century depicts social conservatives as dangerous, because they so often argue as if consent is irrelevant to sexual behavior.

But think about that point, that gay sex is like various forms of rape. Do you know why pedophilia is not going to climb the ladder of social respectability the way being gay has? Because pedophilia is harmful. Too many people in our society look at sexual behavior without accounting for empowerment.

In other considerations of sexual behavior, empowerment is a powerful aspect; it is why universities don't like professors getting together with students, or military officers are not supposed to mingle sexually with enlisted personnel. It is also why a nine-year separation equaling a nearly threefold difference in age presents a basic empowerment issue.

Your refusal of this point speaks volumes.

Nor is it the only one you're insistently overlooking. This is also a family functioning within a model that specifically grooms females for sexual submission, and places the burden of guarding virtue against predators on the five year-old victim.

Furthermore, when a child is five years old, one of the primary purposes of parenthood is to shape behavior for habit. To wit, a young child exploring their own genitals is a natural occurrence in human development. In later years, it becomes something else, but these aspects are not exclusive of one another.

Adult genital focus is problematic enough, but to visit that on a child even more so. In many cases, a parent's concern for a child's behavior shifts to sexual behavior far too early, and plants the seeds of sexuality and sexual identification for future cultivation and harvest.

Sexually molesting children blows right through that barrier. Behavioral guidance and shaping is complicated and fraught enough without forcibly inserting these issues into the conscience of a five year-old.

Your rejection of such considerations is problematic in and of itself; even more so when compounded with your other sleights.

Actually, all you have to do is listen to them. Earlier in this thread, Bells reviewed this ideology (see page 1 (#1-2, 4, 14, 19)↑; you were apparently too busy trying to normalize and legitimize child molestation to notice.

End Part I​

 

Part the Second

(1) You missed the point; what you tell us about one case is certainly interesting, but you cannot invest it with significance because it is most likely impossible for anyone who isn't that survivor to convey enough information for anyone else to analyze the meaning of her outlook.

(2) Normally, I would point out that we cannot extend any one vague statement such as you have offered into a larger perspective, except ...

(3) ... you have just deliberately tried to do that, and are now obliged to provide some sort of reference to the "abusive behaviors" that are "exemplified in documented cases of abuse in general" resulting in abuse survivors saying "the coercion, manipulation and ridicule that stemmed from regular social situations were far worse than the unwanted sexual activity".

A fifteen year-old kicking a 5 year-old in the shins would be problematic; exceptionally so if the assailant demonstrated, as Josh Duggar has, serial predatory behavior, such as seeking out significantly younger children to kick.

The actual conflicts and disruptions a victim experiences depends on each victim and the attending circumstances. Nor am I inclined to get into the gory details for the benefit of a child molestation advocate. And, indeed, I face the same limitation you do; of all the abuse survivors I have known, I cannot possibly convey enough information to anyone else in order that the other might properly analyze a given survivor's outlook.

So please reconsider, because, for instance, a gory detail I can give you only applies to that one case.

And, no, I really don't like discussing those sorts of details in general. There are times when I would if it seems necessary and the people I'm discussing the issue with are responsible, useful people who are actually trying to combat child molestation and help survivors. But, no, not for an advocate of sexual communication unto a five year-old.

Sorry, Capracus, I'm not going to fuel your fantasies.

Fin​

 

The myopic line of reasoning that you and Tiassa have brought to the discussion has established that you two are advocates of child battery and I’m an advocate of child molestation, so I guess I should consider being labeled less morally reprehensible than yourself a compliment. Thank you.

 

um no that hasn't been established. just because you don't like your defense of child molestation called out doesn't mean anyone else has supported the battery of children. thats just an out and out slander.

 

Since we’re not knowingly broadcasting our statements by mouth, slander doesn’t apply in this situation. But in light of what of I’ve actually posted on the matter, their written characterization of my position could be considered libelous. Are you looking to join them?