I think I figured out what bothers me.

@Cerberus That's a very prejudicial way to state your contention. What constitutes "a huge deal"?

The mere fact that it is taboo in modern Western society should be reason enough for you not to touch children.

@Robusto It depends. Like with the girl in the question.

Hello

Speaking of the devil. Hi!

Because Cerb asserts that it will do more harm than good for the girl to speak up now, I feel like he is making it out that the girl is the one "causing the problem" when in fact it was the relative who did. It was her fault that the family will be in distress, not the girl's.

@KitFox I agree.

I am not the devil? How are you? @Cerberus

@KitFox No, not the girl! The boyfriend.

Question.

@Noah The lord of the underworld is my master, you know.

@Cerberus Still no. The boyfriend isn't causing a problem. The relative did.

They each cause a different problem.

No. There is only one problem.

If the girl was playing around with a boy her age, then no big deal. Kids are curious about sex, and at that age they don't really know enough anyway. But for an adult to force that on a child is a great wrong.

Or there may not be a real problem, if the girl is fine with it.

She doesn't know enough to be "fine with it"!

She's 20.

She knows now.

Regardless of whether the 11 year old or the 20 year old is fine with it.

I recently saw an interview with a writer who had an affair with an adult when he was 12 or 14 or so.

He says all it is for him is a fond memory. And he was mad at people trying to tell him he was a freak, crazy, damaged, trying to decide for him how he should feel about something that is precious to him.

What's the difference between "practice it" and "practice" in the following context?

@Cerberus There is a vast difference between 12 and 14 and between boys and girls.

To learn boxing, you need to practice. You can practice with friends vs. You can practice it with frieinds.

@Noah Either, but I would prefer the former.

@Noah To stop feeling hungry, you need to eat. You can eat with friends, or you can eat spaghetti with friends.

@Noah In this context, there is very little difference.

Very little difference in meaning. The second just emphasizes that you are referring back to boxing.

@KitFox Sure, age is important.

@Cerberus age is, in fact, the most important detail here. If the girl had been older, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Thank you, all.

@Cerberus So if the girl was 9 and there was penetration involved, but still she thought it was all fine, should she still keep quiet?

No? It would still be illegal at 15 in most places.

@KitFox Ugh.

Well?

I don't know.

What if she was 11 and her loving aunty encouraged her to masturbate with her sisters?

I am editing a document and the guy has it in there. I was thinking of getting rid of it. Do you guys think I should do it?

And they all thought it was terrifically funny?

I like the formula "half your age plus seven" for drawing the line for how old a sexual partner has to be before it's "OK" to do it.

@Noah Get rid of it.

@Robusto It's a good one.

@KitFox If it was 20 years ago, and all the girls involved still think it was fun...

@Cerberus And then their loving aunty was encouraging their children to kiss each other at family gatherings?

20 years ago?

No, now. The sisters' kids.

If auntie were doing that right now, I would at least have a good talk with her.

Pedophiles don't stop being pedophiles.

Says who?

Says every bit of research ever.

As long as no one talks, they keep molesting children.

I think the statistics also show that a majority of pedophiles were sexually abused as children.

@KitFox But there are probably a million pedophiles in your country right now, of which the large majority never act on it.

We covered that earlier. He didn't believe that either.

@Cerberus is just being a contrarian.

He thinks it's paranoia or mass hysteria or something.

Most people here think the same way.

@Cerberus But this one did, didn't she?

@KitFox Sometimes it is, but only sometimes. Far more often it goes unreported.

And she got away with it and is still getting away with it.

Because no one talks.

Has anyone watched IT Crowd?

She did something the child liked, it was 20 years ago, the child has no problem with it, and there is no reason to think she is still doing it. Maybe she did it only once when she was on cocaine.

Her aunt cultivated her.

Just like she will do with every child she does it to.

Don't you respect the feelings of the (now adult) child at all?

You don't get it.

People used to say the same about sex before marriage: the girl was terribly harmed, because she lost her virginity, and they should go to jail.

I'm not saying it is the same thing.

She has a responsibility to report a crime. To prevent crime. To protect other children from a predator.

I don't care if that makes her feel bad.

@Cerberus No, that's totally different. in that case the girl IS harmed because the patriarchy demands virgin girls for marriage, and that one has been spoiled and must be returned to her seller.

Or stoned.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 So in a patriarchal society, it is good to punish premarital sex?

@Cerberus you misread my sarcasm.

Well, you argue for that.

I disapprove of both patriarchal societies and prohibitions on premarital sex.

@Cerberus And now you're back to saying pedophilia is OK as long as the children want it.

Just as you could argue adults touching children should be punished in our society because the violation of the taboo itself is what causes children to feel dirty etc.

You could. I wouldn't.

Early sexual behaviors confuse children.

The point being: the pre-marital sex is between consenting adults and is harmless... baring unwanted pregnancies, STDs, complicated relationships, etc. In a fair, equal, and just society, adults can have sex with whomever they want. So the fact that we used to attribute harm to premarital sex back when we also used to be misogynistic prudes means nothing now.

@KitFox What if it's two 11-y-olds?

That's different.

Younger children experiment a lot. I didn't, but I know stories.

@Cerberus it's totally different.

And sometimes can be an indicator that the child is a victim of sex abuse.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 But let's assume an unfair, patriarchal society. The judgement of society will cause the girl harm if they are caught. Shouldn't that be reason enough to forbid premarital sex in such a society?

@KitFox But do you think there is still harm done?

@Cerberus Probably not, and that's the difference.

Okay. So why not?

Why not what?

@KitFox It's still a child, and it's still sex.

Why no harm?

It's two children.

@Cerberus That seems like circular reasoning.

@Cerberus uh, I don't see your point. If we assume a society where anyone under 30 who looks in a mirror must be executed, shouldn't that be reason to forbid people from showing under-30s their reflections? uh, yeah. it should be.

@Cerberus And the implicit relationship is different.

I don't want you doing this because ... I don't want you doing this.

@MετάEd ?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 So yes?

It boils down to "when you do something that disgusts me, you go to jail."

@KitFox How is it different? One child can be dominant. It often works that way.

@Cerberus You will understand when you have children.

You should understand now.

@MετάEd So how does that work?

@KitFox I'm trying to explore the issue of harm.

Your relationship with your contemporaries is much different than with your parents.

@Cerberus Your analogy makes no sense. You are comparing a situation where arbitrary cultural norms create a situation of harm, to a situation where there is intrinsic harm.

Adults wield ultimate power in a child's world.

If you're 11, a 12-y-o is really really old.

@Cerberus no, not really

A dominant, popular 12-y-o.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I'm asking, yes or no?

Who is probably not remotely interested in sexual behavior.

@Cerberus I answered yes already, but pointed out that it's a trap, it doesn't apply to this situation at all.

@KitFox But what is 11yo girl and 12yo boy touch each other nonetheless? Boy takes the initiative.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 So you would forbid premarital sex in a premodern society, yes?

@Cerberus also don't fall into the trap here of setting up a situation where a 12yo sexually assaults an 11yo but "it's just kids, they're just experimenting, etc". It can happen and does.

@KitFox Why?

@Cerberus If you really mean that, you are too fucking stupid to have this conversation with.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yes, I think so too. And I think it can be just as bad as between child and adult. Can.

@KitFox No, I want to explore the issue. The reasons and factors behind things.

But you don't have to.

So tell me how you don't understand that.

You talk to your parents like they are friends?

@Cerberus If I had the power to forbid stuff I'd rather forbid the pre-modern society's prudish notions about sex. I would understand with a prohibition on pre-marital sex given that that ridiculous society creates harm for its own members if they do that.

Well, I would say an adult would be dominant with a child. But a slightly older child with a dominant character can also be very dominant. So I'm trying to find out what it is exactly that makes the harm different.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 "Understand" what?

The thing about premarital sex and all that: you put the horse in front of the cart. The men want control over the women and their sexuality so they forbid premarital sex and then demand virgins. The whole situation is fucked. It's not at all comparable to pedophilia. It's not like children are not actually being harmed until their parents get all annoyed, and then the harm magically appears.

@Cerberus Because the same level of inexperience and incompetency and mental development makes the exploration unsurprising. There is no power imbalance, there is no advantage to be taken.

@Cerberus sorry, "understand [the existence of] a prohibition"

If the child takes the initiative and enjoys and is still happy about it 20 years later and has no mental issues, then how can we tell the difference between that and premarital sex? My point is that, maybe, part of the damage done by touching a willing child is the stigma. That doesn't mean the stigma is any less real.

@Cerberus The illusion of willingness is created by the predator.

So that the victim believes it was her idea.

And puts the blame on herself instead of the perpetrator.

@KitFox I'm not sure there is no power imbalance. I think there often is.

You know, for someone who advocates for pedophilia, you seem to have large gaps in understanding their typical behaviors.

I'm not advocating pedophilia!

@Cerberus In which case, it is probably harmful.

I'm trying to explore the issue in a nuanced way.

@KitFox Please take that back.

How many times do I have to post this?

You are saying that. You keep saying that.

"It should be illegal...but she shouldn't say anything."

Wrong.

No, I'm right.

I said, she shouldn't be forced to say something against her will 20 years later.

See what you're doing?

Because it's fine to have sex with children as long as they are OK with it.

You're creating a straw man to make me look bad. That's awful, when I'm just trying to explore theissue.

@KitFox READ!

And continue to be OK with it 20 years later.

What part about "you should never touch children" is unclear?

Right. So it is OK to have sex with children because talking about it might do more harm than good later on.

@Cerberus "huge deal"... "_may cause more harm than good". That's a pretty soft statement. What is a huge deal? Estimate the likelihood that it causes net harm?

Kit says: "it is OK to have sex with children". Okay, interesting position.

As you know, I disagree with that.

So you should never kill people, but admitting you did it twenty years later might make everyone feel sad.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That is a difficult question. I said this with example from the question in mind.

Either it is a crime, or it is not. You seem to think it's no big deal.

@KitFox I just don't want you to say the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

I'm not. I'm drawing logical conclusions from your statements.

That's not my point. I have stated over 9000 times that it should be illegal, dammit! Read!

You should never touch children, but since you did, let's not make a huge deal out of it.

Why do you keep insulting me so?

@Cerberus Well, for me, it doesn't work.

So touching children isn't really a big huge deal.

@MετάEd So then what are you saying?

@KitFox 20 years later. Forcing girl to speak up. Girl thinks it was fine.

You are allowed to disagree.

Because confronting someone about it later is a bigger deal than actually molesting someone?

Right. So as long as the girl thinks it is fine, you think it is OK that she was molested.

I don't want to be the object of your accusations any more. I just wanted a nuanced debate.

@Cerberus The thing is, victims do not necessarily need to testify/prosecute their attackers. They are free to ignore it. But there is another duty, which is the duty of preventing harm to others. This is a problem in sex cases because victims are too often silent.

@Cerberus I am saying that peoples' private condemnation of an act is not reason enough for the state to condemn the act. The state should protect the public from real harm, but a feeling of disgust is not real harm and is no business of the state to prevent.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That is what I have been saying over and over.

Consider Jimmy Savile.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 As I already said to Kit, I see that point. But it was 20 years ago. And it may have been only that one time. And the girl is OK with it. Should she sacrifice her own happiness for something that happened 20 years ago and some speculations?

The girl in Cerb's example could just tell her story to police, explain that she does not want to testify or press charges, and the police could investigate for other victims.

I'm not saying she would be wrong if she did, but: she doesn't want to.

@Cerberus boo hoo, sacrifice some of her happiness. Like I tell my kids: sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do.

She didn't "sacrifice her happiness." Stop being so melodramatic.

She has a responsibility to report a crime.

The aunt was still wrong no matter how we look at it. So does it stop being wrong if nobody cares?

@MετάEd I agree 100 %. If you want to have mushroom-soup sex, I'm not going to forbid you. So what about it?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That's what I did.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Can there be a crime without a victim?

You said "nobody".

@Cerberus It is my position that the girl is a victim even if she doesn't think of herself as one.

She could be brain-damaged for all I know.

She could have constructed an elaborate set of rationalizations and cognitive dissonances which she holds in place to maintain her sanity

She could be lying about not caring, but doesn't want to rock the boat.

None of that matters. She is still a victim and a crime occurred.

All speculation. All deciding for someone else.

@Cerberus Yes, she was a child, they don't get to decide for themselves. That's what makes this a crime.

Her position now is totally irrelevant.

She could have walked away from that sexual encounter feeling happy, then been immediately eaten by a passing dragon, and her aunt would still be a pedophile criminal.

From the perspective of the adult, I think you should just never do it, period. But that still leaves open the question how you should deal with various situations when it's already happened. I think once, 20 years ago, no complaints, that's a very difficult situation. Not "you are obligated to mess up your own life and that of your family right now!".

@Cerberus Anyway you too are speculating on the number of other victims there are. The truth is we have precious few facts.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No, her position now is what you were talking about when you said she might be crazy now.

@Cerberus She's not messing up her life. Her aunt messed it up already.

The girl disagrees.

@Cerberus Your position is that there is no harm to the girl. You have to take her boyfriend's hearsay on that. In fact there might be harm that we cannot see here. But even if the facts can be accepted at face value, it doesn't matter; the crime in question didn't happen with the adult victim, it happened with the child victim.

This reminds me of a girl I knew in high school whose mother and step-father had sex with her and her siblings.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I'm just saying the girl feels that there was no harm.

And that it is a bit presumptious to assume that there was and act on it, bypassing her feelings.

They all blamed her for reporting it, said she was the one who caused all these family issues.

@Cerberus You have no information to base your "once... no complaints" fact on. none. There is no way to know if that is true. And statistically it is unlikely to be true. And anyway I did point out that the girl doesn't need to press charges. Just telling the police would discharge her duty to potential victims.

She could even do it anonymously.

@KitFox Now that's very bad. But also very different. She felt she needed to report it, and she was the victim.

"Poilu is a warmly informal term for a French World War I infantryman, meaning, literally, hairy one." (Wikipedia) "Poilu: thick stew made of rice and chicken and small game; southern U.S." (Vocabulary.com) This is how we know French soldiers are chicken. Or at least small game.

@Cerberus She felt she needed to report it only after we talked about it and I encouraged her to do it.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 But that's not what the boyfriend wants. He wants to make it her problem.

@Cerberus her feelings are not of paramount importance here. First of all, I don't even know if they have been reported accurately.

@Cerberus He can't always get what he wants either.

@KitFox So how did she feel before you talked to her?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 According to the boyfriend, she says she wasn't molested and she's fine.

@Cerberus How would I know?

Well, you talked to her.

@KitFox right, like I said. 1. hearsay, 2. who knows what kinds of rationalizations or lies she is telling him or herself?

@Cerberus But how would I know how she felt before that?

I don't understand.

Really?