|
I wonder about how much of the damage of child sexual abuse is inherent in the act and how much of it is because we tell the child it should fuck him up. Do you think civilisations where it was normal were just traumatized on a global level or it just didn't effect them as much because they found it normal?Bastard Soap (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Name a civilization where child abuse was "normal". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on our current definitions, plenty. marriage at age 13, say, was common in plenty of cultures. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In England the age of consent was 10 until 1875. I have, in my family tree, an ancestress who had her first child aged 13 and was married at 12. Spain has the lowest age of consent at 13. We have, of course, an article on all this. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know it was acceptable in ancient Greece for a professor to sleep with his young students Bastard Soap (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP has an article on that.A8875 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Rind et al. for a highly controversial (and possibly flawed) study on the question of how damaging child sexual abuse is. I think sexual abuse is always damaging, but the cultural reaction plays a role too--in some places victim blaming is quite common. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I once had the same idea. The ancients were certainly more laid back about this stuff. I think I also read somewhere that things like being mugged and stuff don't seem quite as bad if you live somewhere where it's the norm and know plenty of people who had it happen to themselves, but I don't remember the technical term for this. So, social stuff certainly does play a role. Уга-уга12 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've certainly had the impression from reading about adults who were sexually abused as children that part of the damage is due to the taboos around sex (and, in many cases, threats by the abuser) that prevent the victim from talking about it. It isn't at all obvious to me why sexual abuse should be inherently more harmful than other kinds of physical abuse. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are able to refer you to the Wikipedia article on Child abuse that considers its psychological and physical effects. The desk should not be invited to speculate about civilisations where child abuse might not have had these effects, nor join in a discussion about ancient Greek pederasty. In any case you used unnecessary profanity and mistook "effect" to mean "affect". DriveByWire (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting on the OP's spelling is just as irrelevant as the other matters you say we should not be talking about here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'd add that while I can accept that the word "fuck" on its own is seen as profane by some people under any circumstances (not to me), the expression "fuck him up" should not be so regarded. We all know that the meaning of that expression has nothing to do with the sex act. It's just our amazing English language at work. Now, back to the real issue... Part of the care of victims of sexual abuse is to convince them that it wasn't their fault and that they can overcome the mistreatment. Anything that tells the victim that they have been seriously and permanently damaged by it is actually quite unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that in modern society, the type of people likely to sexually "abuse" their children are likely to abuse them in other ways as well. It becomes hard to separate correlation from causation. Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage. For older minors, an element of coercion is often involved, and just having one's body controlled by a dominating authority figure may cause more psychological harm than the sexual act itself.
- For what it's worth, I find the court testimony of Warren Jeffs' victims very interesting. One woman said "He stole my innocence. I didn't know it was inappropriate, the things that he did to me." Most of the testimony focuses on how Jeffs used coercion, not on the actual sexual acts he performed. Some of the victims did claim to resist: "He started to undress me and undress himself. I was crying and I was, like, 'Please. I don`t want you to. It doesn`t feel right. Please stop.'" See a CNN transcript about Jeffs here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/08/ddhln.01.html --140.180.5.169 (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that statement "Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage." without a reliable source irresponsible. DriveByWire (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you disputing what nearly every human on the planet knows: namely, that infants have only a very dim understanding of the world and no long-term memory of events? I concede it's possible that infants are instinctively protective of their genital areas, because they're important for the transmission of his/her genes. However, anyone who has changed a diaper, or watched one getting changed, knows that this is not the case. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While most people don't have memories from before they were around 3 years old, you still learn a lot before then and have plenty of understanding. I can certainly believe that abuse in early childhood could have long lasting psychological effects. --Tango (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Infant" usually means younger than 12 months, not 3 years. Do you have any sources for your claim that sexual interaction at this stage "could have long lasting psychological effects"? Actually, do you have any sources saying that, even at the moment, the infant doesn't enjoy (i.e. is temporarily harmed by) sexual interaction? I consider both to be very extraordinary and implausible claims, and although I could be wrong, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
- My bad, I see that you said "I can certainly believe", not that you do believe it. Still, I consider it an extraordinary claim. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| I've blocked User:Itsmejudith for making unfounded accusations and notified the ArbCom. Please do not continue discussing these accusations.
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
- Is there a reason that we are allowing this pro-paedophile trolling to continue? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF. The only person who seems to be pro- or anti- anything in this thread is you; everyone else is mostly objective. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see that post as a perfect demonstration of the impact of the taboo. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally we would compare minors who have sex with adults in cultures where it is taboo and where it's not, to see if they are messed up in both cultures, or only when it's a taboo. However, this is complicated by the fact that there are many other factors which tend to vary in cultures where this is OK. For example, in Pakistani tribal regions, girls may be married off to an adult male at 12 or so, but, in addition to this, they have no choice in who they marry, must wear a veil, are taken out of school, have little protection from the law, are often isolated from their families and virtually enslaved by the new family, and live in a war zone to boot. So, if they are messed up, it might well be for these other reasons. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is also physical damage which can be caused by early intercourse and pregnancy, like obstetric fistula, as documented in the movie A Walk to Beautiful. StuRat (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure and the physical damage to infants hardly bears thinking of. I'm in the UK and if I fail to denounce this prima facie paedophile to the authorities I am myself guilty of a serious criminal offence. The IP geolocates to Princeton University and I am, we are all, duty bound to email them. International police protocols apply, Itsmejudith (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I abhor paedophilia. I see no evidence of any here. If we cannot discuss such issues, our society really is fucked up. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you do Hi Lo and I believe you're a teacher and I'm sure you assume good faith. It's OK to discuss principles but this one is blatant. This is the reasonable face that paedophilia puts across. Sad but true. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a "reasonable face", how can you possibly distinguish such a face from any other reasonable person based on 2 comments alone? --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As soon as someone starts talking about sex with infants doing no harm because they can't remember, you know you are dealing with the pro-paedophile lobby. The lobbyists also claim that it is social norms and not the ugly deeds that cause the problems. If you don't know better, may I suggest you educate yourself, and stop giving room to the trolls? You could start here and follow the references. The initial question was possibly a search for information, but the discussion since has been largely uninformed opinion. (There are a number of exceptions, of course. They are obvious because they contain references.) Bielle (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your double standards are astounding. My post contained a reference: namely, a court document describing the testimony of an actual pedophile's victims. I consider that very relevant to the OP's question, especially because nobody has offered anything more scientifically rigorous. By your own standards, my post was not uninformed opinion but a valuable response, correct? --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Itsmejudith: If your "prima facie paedophile" is a reference to the OP, you really should withdraw that, take 20 steps back, count to about 1,000 and take about 100 deep breaths. That is a massive and unwarranted over-reaction. Nowhere was the OP advocating pedophilia or anything remotely like that. They just want to talk about the issues. If we can't discuss pedophilia in an effort to better understand its effects, but condemn anyone who ever starts a discussion about it, we'd be no better than the lynch mob. We're above that. Further, what connection is there between you and this discussion, other than the one you yourself created by voluntarily choosing to enter into it? Your fears of prosecution for merely being part of this discussion and not denouncing the supposed pedophile are completely unfounded, but even if they had some basis, you yourself created the link, nobody else. Time for a rethink, methinks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems she was referring to 140.180.5.169, not the OP. - Lindert (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is far from obvious, going on the indenting. In fact, on reflection it's not obvious just who Judith is referring to, which makes her allegations of "prima facie pedophilia" all the more inappopriate. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jack. Per Bielle this is clear cut. This is exactly what pro paedophilia apologia looks like. I do believe in genuine discussion about issues. This is not that. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may. You have no call to make accusations of "prime facie paedophilia" without very strong evidence, which you simply don't have here, no matter how you read it. It's one thing to suspect what motives may really lie behind a question or a statement, but you simply don't translate that into an outright accusation of wrongdoing. Not here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack . There is too much at stake. Someone proposes that the rape of a baby is unproblematic.Not looking good. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Raping a baby is not good. Discussing it does no harm. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't the expert consensus. One of many reasons why we don't feed trolls. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody has to discuss it - psychologists, law makers, police, etc. Why not us? HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Judith, please point to where anybody said that "raping a baby is unproblematic". The editor in question has concluded from whatever they've read that there is no evidence that an infant suffers mental damage from being sexually interfered with. You may conclude quite the opposite, or link studies that show there is indeed permanent mental damage. Without actual references to actual studies, we're all just shooting the breeze here. Just because he says he cannot find any evidence of permanent mental damage to a baby who's treated in that abominable way, does NOT mean he's advocating they be treated in that way, or that he personally practises this - because that's what pedophilia means. You've made that leap and you have no right to. It would be like accusing me of harbouring and protecting murderers just because I say I support the abolition of the death penalty. The editor has confined his comments to mental damage. He's made no statement denying the extreme offence to social and cultural norms or the breach of our laws that these sorts of activities entail. Your rush to judgment reminds me of those tragic cases where a loving father was vilified and prosecuted because of some squiggle their daughter drew that reminded some busybody of something vaguely penile, and they added 2 and 2 and made 40,000,000. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, JackofOz. It might be true that some people in the pro-pedophilia lobby make the same claims I did. Unfortunately, I cannot control who agrees with me, and frankly I don't care. Asserting that every claim made by the "pro-pedophilia lobby" must necessarily be false is not only intellectually dishonest and illogical, it allows the "lobby" to truthfully claim that their opponents are being dishonest and illogical, and giving the lobby ammunition is probably not what Judith was aiming to do.
- By analogy to some of the outrageous arguments made above, if I claim that Stalinism is effective in preventing social unrest and industrializing the country, I must be a mass murderer with an agenda to install a brutal dictator in every country. It might be that Stalin and his ilk made similar claims; in fact, I'd be surprised if he didn't. That doesn't mean the claim is false, or that those who claim it's true must be Stalinists, or that Stalinism has more positives than negatives. It simply means that this particular aspect of Stalinism (or pedophilia) is not negative. If you refuse to acknowledge this, I would seriously question your intellectual integrity. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I question the integrity of anyone who would propose something is "not negative" if the probable consequences and costs have not been weighed in the argument. I know of no argument that proposes anything positive about child sexual abuse or paedophilia except as presented by those who are actively trying to normalize adult-child sex. If you have access to such evidence, please cite it. If not, then statements like "Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage." are extremely worrying. Bielle (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would like to engage in an intellectual discussion, please respond to my post above, where I offer my argument. Also note that I said "not negative", not "positive". You're free to call me a crackpot, or to question the soundness of my reasoning. You are not free, per WP:AGF and reasonable doubt, to make accusations of criminal behavior. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading your Age of consent link, Bielle, I am further outraged. You claimed:
- "As soon as someone starts talking about sex with infants doing no harm because they can't remember, you know you are dealing with the pro-paedophile lobby. The lobbyists also claim that it is social norms and not the ugly deeds that cause the problems. If you don't know better, may I suggest you educate yourself, and stop giving room to the trolls? You could start here and follow the references."
- I read that section, and I'm calling your bluff. It doesn't contain a single word relating to sex with infants, whether the infants can remember, or the impact of social norms. It also contains 15 references, almost all of which I can't access. Out of the references I can access, one is about the pedophilia community, one is about the International LGBT Association's condemnation of pedophilia, one is about men-boy sex at a particular Revere house, and the last is about social interactions amongst pedophiles. Am I going to track down all 15 references and read them to fish for your claim? No, because you implied that your link supports your conclusions and your accusations, which it doesn't. If you had any integrity at all, you would either apologize for being misleading or admit that you were intentionally trying to deceive. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this righteous indignation were not sad, it might be frightening. I've done enough feeding for one night. Bielle (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very disappointing response, Bielle. Since when did the Ref desk become a kangaroo court? At least try to make some decent response, not just dismiss it out of hand and fall back on the judgment you've already made. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- This entire thread should have been closed before it got started. This is not what wikipedia is for. Also not the helpdesk. Noone is being helped here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll second that. Allowing the thread to continue was a guarantee that somebody would get blocked and drama created. It was never likely that such a thread would generate more light than heat. We shouldn't have to censor stuff like this, but put a certain kind of question on the reference desk and the interactions of other editors will run like clockwork... bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
