Kangan (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:13 am Sex with another person, to me, is a way of expressing deep friendship. Sadly there are those who are frightened by such a concept.

This may raise an issue that might best be discussed on a political forum and that may be considered inappropriate here (if so, I apologize and ask that people ignore this post), but, to my way of thinking, "sex with another person...[as] a way of expressing deep friendship" implies the ability to consent. Someone who is 10 is unlikely to be able to give such consent and is viewed by most authorities as statutorily unable to do so. I'm not saying that every experience of that nature will automatically cause permanent damage or trauma, but the odds are greater that its impact will be negative rather than positive in the long term. So, society has a legitimate interest in protecting people from such an experience.

Indeed.. I was sexually active the second time I was molested, but being forced to have sexc is another matter altogether

Considering (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:06 am This is a fascinating, necessary discussion. If we with our fantasies and determinations cannot accurately define some of these terms and actions then it's a conversation that will always stumble.

It is of concern that the media and "interested parties" have appropriated these terms and ideas and made them flash points to the public while completely ignoring the realities of the victims and the offenders. Certainly I do not support the latter but they are a factor. Is an offender a child who may be only slightly older than the victim? And there's the uncomfortable thought that the young can and do seduce older persons: I speak from experience. I took my first lover when I was 12 and he was 37. I will grant you that when I was twelve I was physically akin to a 25 year old and I was very much the predator. But in the eyes of most that changes nothing. We dismiss "children" as blameless in many, many things. If a person under, say, 15 commits murder every effort is made to show that the guilt for their deed lies elsewhere. Do we always know that's correct?

Not everything can be easily and simply codified in law or in our frames of reference. For example, rape and molestation are not necessarily the same. Rape is a violent, physical act. Molestation can vary from the subtly psychological to the overtly physical. How each of us defines that is necessarily personal but we must always be willing to hear other versions from other persons.

Things sexual of all stripe are the third rail of life. That I will be castrated is a horror to many I know. However, here, it excites no comment other than encouragement. I would suggest that we, here, have the broader view as we can see and consider far more sides than those who withdraw in disgust that any human might tamper with the imbued right to procreate.

Each of us needs to consider what constitutes molestation but not totally define it. We need to retain an open definition for, I assure you, once we think we've now heard it all, that's precisely when the "worst" we've ever heard occurs.

I couldn't disagree with you more. There's nothing "personal" or situational about the definition of sexual "molestation." It is any act that objectifies another human being for erotic purposes without their consent. Groping the genitals of a 35 year old stranger on the subway is molestation. Any sex act with someone who is unable to consent is molestation. That includes minors and people who are physically or mentally impaired or in some way restrained against their will (I'm not talking about the outer boundaries of consensual S&M, which is another subject).

Regarding the lack of consent in a minor, for most of us, as a wise person once said in another context, "when you see it you recognize it," but just to be sure and becaue there seem to be people in every society who would try to "justify" sexual congress between adults and minors, most societies establish an age of consent, below which they protect their children by the de facto assumption that they are unable to consent. I'll leave the practices of remote societies to the anthropologists and forensic psychologists among us. A 12 year old who has sex with a 37 year old has been raped, no matter how Lolita-like s/he may be. The 37 year old is responsible for stopping the process of seduction. Period. (As for the specific question of sexual relations between minors and other young people, some jurisdictions allow judges to take the age of the rapist into consideration in sentencing, but not in establishing guilt or innocence, which is stipulated by statute.)

Sorry for coming on so strong, but if anyone wants to think I'm closed-minded in this one area of an otherwise liberal set of values, I'll take that as a compliment.

cordonone (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:34 pm I couldn't disagree with you more. There's nothing "personal" or situational about the definition of sexual "molestation." It is any act that objectifies another human being for erotic purposes without their consent. Groping the genitals of a 35 year old stranger on the subway is molestation. Any sex act with someone who is unable to consent is molestation. That includes minors and people who are physically or mentally impaired or in some way restrained against their will (I'm not talking about the outer boundaries of consensual S&M, which is another subject).

Regarding the lack of consent in a minor, for most of us, as a wise person once said in another context, "when you see it you recognize it," but just to be sure and becaue there seem to be people in every society who would try to "justify" sexual congress between adults and minors, most societies establish an age of consent, below which they protect their children by the de facto assumption that they are unable to consent. I'll leave the practices of remote societies to the anthropologists and forensic psychologists among us. A 12 year old who has sex with a 37 year old has been raped, no matter how Lolita-like s/he may be. The 37 year old is responsible for stopping the process of seduction. Period. (As for the specific question of sexual relations between minors and other young people, some jurisdictions allow judges to take the age of the rapist into consideration in sentencing, but not in establishing guilt or innocence, which is stipulated by statute.)

Sorry for coming on so strong, but if anyone wants to think I'm closed-minded in this one area of an otherwise liberal set of values, I'll take that as a compliment.

I can see that this discussion is clearly too complicated for an easy answer.

Certainly, age 'differences' of lovers IS significant. It is especially significant in today's modern world. However, there are historic times when it is more blurry. Also, there are times when it is obvious that society ENFORCES its irrational rules upon those who express LOVE to each other and forsake family and society to be true to that love.

Take for example the most often discussed Shakspearian play "Romeo and Juliet"

Some sources place Juliet at age 13, almost 14 while Romeo is 15, maybe 17?

SOURCE#1 (http://www.shakespeare-online.com/faq/romeofaq.html)

SOURCE#2 (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qs ... 5001636493)

Then, there is THIS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/ ... 4606.shtml) sort of problem...

The problem with 'young love' is primarily sociological. The Western world with a 50% divorce rate hardly qualifies as a perfect sociological example.

So, as age differences of over 5 years make western societies VERY nervous, none can deny from the EVIDENCE (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -cent.html) that minor ARE having sex, with whom they have it seems to be their decision. Just because there may be laws against it does not mean that it is not happening.

Then, of course there is THIS (http://women.propeller.com/story/2008/0 ... -two-years) opinion by a blogger...

The question is who is having sex with 14 year old girls? If it is an underage male then they both need counseling but if it's an adult male it's a crime. Planned Parenthood doesn't t refer cases where an under age female has sex with an adult male to the police. Therefore, Planned Parenthood is guilty of covering up sex crimes.

If the girl consents, especially if she has a history of molestation by a family member or a close friend, the act of getting pregnant by a male of her choice is a statement of claim to her own body.

I shall not comment on Gay relationships, but similar psychological mechanisms are undoubtedly in existance in these, too.

BUT THIS IS PURE BULLSHIT... (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx ... derage+sex +incident&articleId=0bf55a89-dbba-489f-8555-cc30d7e81e71)

If I was the goddamned judge on this case I'd marry these two in open court...

But truly, this is OVER the TOP...

Teen charged in underage sex incident

By GRETA CUYLER

Union Leader Correspondent

Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2007

WEARE – A 17-year-old boy who admitted to having sex with his underage girlfriend has been charged with misdemeanor sexual assault.

Damon C. Hadley, 17, of Henniker was arrested on Oct. 9 and released on $5,000 personal recognizance bail, according to Weare police.

His trial is scheduled for Nov. 27 in Goffstown District Court.

If convicted of the Class A misdemeanor, Hadley could face up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine.

In addition to the criminal charge, Hadley is recovering from a beating by the girl's father. On Sept. 10, the father stormed the high school parking lot and hit the 17-year-old, leaving him with cuts, bruises and two stitches to his face.

"We are a society of laws, not of vigilantism," said Skip Campbell, Hadley's attorney. "I hope that people will take the opportunity to look at the facts in this case as they come out and reserve their harsh judgment."

He described his client as a nice and thoughtful young man, who works hard in school and has a part-time job fixing motorcycles.

Hadley and his girlfriend had been dating since June, he said.

"This situation has profoundly affected him and confused him," Campbell said. "He certainly did not deserve what this man did to him, which is outrageous under any circumstances."

That morning, the girl failed to show up for her first-period class. School officials and then the girl's parents began to search for her, to no avail. Hadley and the girl returned to school at the same time, through separate entrances.

►Angry dad defended, bashed by readers (37)

►Father waylays daughter's lover (66)

►Teen to be charged in Weare sex case (42)

The teens later admitted to having sex during the school day, but off school property, Weare Police Detective Lou Chatel said.

Under state law, a person can't consent to sex until the age of 16. The girl is 15 1/2.

In some circumstances, and if their age difference was three years or more, the youth could have faced a felony charge.

The girl's father reported the sexual assault to police, then drove to John Stark Regional High School and attacked Hadley in the parking lot, in full view of students and parents just as school was letting out around 3 p.m.

The father was arrested and charged with simple assault, a Class B felony.

The girl has filed a restraining order against Hadley. She and her siblings have also transferred high schools.

"I don't think it's that unusual that a 17-year-old is having sex with a 15-year-old," Michael Iacopino, president of the New Hampshire Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers. "It seems to me this is the perfect case where prosecutorial discretion ought to be used so we don't have a travesty of justice."

Detective Chatel said Hadley will likely have to report his arrest on college and job applications.

"If the girl's father had a concern that she was having sex with another student at her high school, the proper approach would have been to speak with his daughter and to avail himself to resources in their community," said Campbell. "His response should not have been to lash out in anger about a situation that he clearly didn't understand."

So we don't know the particulars of this case, clearly the boy may be acting like a 25 cent stud and in which case, he DESERVES to be accused of molestation.

However, they may be IN LOVE and the girl's family may be trying to split them up.

...you just don't know.

That is why mandatory laws with mandatory penalties are NOT a good idea. This is why we have judges. However, the religious fundaMENTALISTS insist on NO flexibility or discretion on the part of the judge, unless, the judge adheres to the fundamentalists philosophy. A bit like an Arab Muslim-dominated country.

Yet, with a straight face they tell the story in Genesis of Lot and his daughters, after they left Sodom and Gommorrah and Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt, who get 'daddy' drunk, take him into a tent and BOTH get pregnant by him... So, lot was 'saved' from fire and brimstone destruction to molest and impregnate his two daughters... so do they burn incest...er... incense at your church?

Do you REALLY want your morality in the Judeo-christian or MUSLIM tradition? Need I remind you about Mohammad's SIX YEAR OLD WIFE?

Therfore, I wish to suspend judgment. Suffice it to say that I know molestation when I see it.

It is a bit like the old lady who calls 911 and tells the operator, Hello! There is a naked man in my bedroom. The operator responds, we will send the police right over. The woman replies, no hurry. Just have them stop by in the morning after breakfast...

So, yes, a pattern of a preditor implies molestation guilt but lovers with only an age difference implies something else entirely.

It is very hard to sit in judgment on these things with mandated laws and still claim to have a shred of humanity...

However, then there is the PREGNANCY PACT (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_ ... nancy_pact) and the SUBSEQUENT DENIAL (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/22/pregnancy.pact.ap/) story...

:shakemitk

Then, there is the story of the mistake that never goes away. (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/10/21/111/94392)

When you look at it in a certain light it is ALL FUCKED UP... beyond repair...

:shakemitk

....ALL OF THIS AND THE 'NORMAL?' PEOPLE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE COME TO A PLACE LIKE THIS LOOKING TO RID THEMSELVES OF THEIR SEXUALITY.



shakemitkshakemitk:shakemitk shakemitk

Milkman (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:20 am In reading several biographic posts on here , I noticed that being molested as a child seems to be a common thread. I was molested twice as child. It did not impact my sexuality , I have known I was gay for a long time, but I wonder if it has made me uneasy with sexual pleasure ... I have gone from wild episodes of sexual indulgence, to horrified abstinence and back again for years. Castration appeals to me as relief from this constant struggle and the chaos that the wild episodes cause.... How do others feel about this subject. Is molestation common among EA members?

I don't know about other members. I was not at all abused or molested. For me it was that I was just oversexed from a young age and the frustration built up until I just wanted to be free from the urges.

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:39 pm I don't know about other members. I was not at all abused or molested. For me it was that I was just oversexed from a young age and the frustration built up until I just wanted to be free from the urges.

Perhaps we need another survey, though current survey has questions about molestation already.

Childhood molestation certainly add to castration fantasies, but i feel that these who have not been molested just do not say anything, as there is nothing to say.

I haven't been molested myself. Not sexually, not by adults or teenagers.

At some point I was bullied at school. Quite hard. That was difficult period for me of course and it left its own psychological traumas. But it is not related to sex. Instead it forced me to think more about life and attitude and my position in life than it would have been normal to my age. I am not a submissive person. I've always valued freedom. I think that exactly this bullying helped me to develope into a better person. Better than average.

If i was too satisfied with my life, no ambitions, no desire to achive anything, then i woud have been an average beer drinking husband, with nice beer belly and stereotype thinking - like in Simpsons family

E.

One point that we're not addressing here that "Considering" makes is that of those under the age of 18 that want to (or think they want to) have sexual relations. Be it straight, gay, or bi, it doesn't matter.

He says he was 12.

The question he raises is this - "is there a victim?" IF one or both of the sexual players are under the magical number of 18?

Furthermore, is there a victim if two teenagers, say both 15-16, decided mutually to "get it on"?

I have addressed this situation 4 times already:

G1 is now 20 and will be getting married (planned to anyway) to his live-in girlfriend. This has been going on since he was 17. She just turned 18, but her parents pretty much signed her over to G1's parents some time ago. We knew there was consensual sex going on. What are you going to do about it? By the way, Baby Mason is due to arrive on Halloween night, if the doctor guessed the date right...some of us learn the hard way.

On to G2 - at 16, he "scored" on New Year's Eve. With a girl. (So far the 4 of them are all turning out straight. Can't have everything, I guess...)

G3 is ten, and there better NOT be anything going on there! (Note my reaction to that idea - age notwithstanding.)

Last year, N1 and N2 both "scored" with girls. One was 16, the other 14. I was not impressed. I bought them both a box of condoms.

Hell, everyone's getting lucky but for me...

But back to the topic at hand.

Were there any victims in any of these cases? No. Granted, none of them had relations with someone over 18 at the time, except for G1's girlfriend, who was two years younger than he. Is that legal? No. But no one cared. I walked in on that once - well, it was just getting started and they didn't lock the door...but it seemed to me that SHE was aggressor there. So here they are, setting up housekeeping, a baby on the way now, and Grandma-to-be has already gone "shit ignorant stupid" with the baby thing already.

Still, I can't answer the question of "Considering's" original hypothesis: was he a victim? He says "no". We think otherwise.

I have no easy answer for this one.

Looking back, can any of us say that we might have enjoyed it, back then, had we been "molested" ( I put that in quotes for context ) by an adult some years older? Maybe.

There are sexually precocious children out there. By children, I mean <18. At what age is proper, however, written law aside, is something for each person to consider. Granted, it IS illegal in most area, given age of consent laws that vary from region to region.

Part of me says that a 12 yo. boy having relations with ANYONE who is 37 is wrong.

Then again, as N1 said about a boy his age "getting laid" with his "hot teacher" who was 35 - "That lucky bastard! I'd f*ck my English teacher!"

Yes but all unwilling or coerced sex is bad!!

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:15 pm ....ALL OF THIS AND THE 'NORMAL?' PEOPLE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE COME TO A PLACE LIKE THIS LOOKING TO RID THEMSELVES OF THEIR SEXUALITY.



shakemitkshakemitk:shakemitk shakemitk

What a great comment!