mick_towe

Barbarossa http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDoNFQZqQpd6aL32Ua4JPTQ and The Thinking Ape (Stardusk) http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo1qRcO1OehgkOD_fHsu_uQ

Ahhh. My apologies. It seems I am wasting my breath. Split on with yer bad self

I hear what you are saying, it is a technical critique, and it is not without merit. But for me the details are irrelevant. Mutilating babies = bad. Splitting hairs about whether female or male mutilation is worse is just an attempt to distract from the issue. If I am discussing this topic and someone happens to say "Well male circumcision is not quite the same as female circumcision ..." then I know I am talking to a person that would rather distract from the issue, than condemn a crime against babies. I am NOT accusing you of that, I can tell you are just trying to work on the arguement. But I am making the suggestion that if you are dealing with someone who needs these details clarified, you're probably wasting your breath.

Chop any part off the body of an adult without thier permission. You will go to jail. Mutilation is mutilation. The point isn't that they are equivalent, the point is that in the west mutilating girls is seen as inhuman, and mutilating boys is accepted as relgious freedom.

Would you be saying this if it was Eric doing the abusing? After all the kids are dependant on his paycheck. Surely they would starve without it. WE are not doing anything to Marry and her family. Marry is responsible for the consequences of her actions. Whether she is banished from society or burned at the stake (I don't know how free societies will handle this problem) , she committed the unethical act and the repercussion on her family are her responsibility. Transferring responsability to others in this case is benevolent sexism which is a very real non-theoretical problem that has wide spread consequences for human beings all over the planet currently.

He isn't avoiding the question. He is asking you for an example that meets the criteria that you claim the above example meets. I am asking for the same thing. In the other thread I have made a case for why your example is flawed. Discussion can not continue until you provide us an example where it is ethically ok for an adult to have sex with a child. If you can not do this, your question is irrelevant.

The "general bias" you are speaking of offends me. Your participation in said bias offends me. People sitting around trying to dream up scenarios in which it might be ok for adults to have sex with children offends me. I feel I have been fairly open minded in this thread considering. Now I am making the claim that you have NOT provided a good example as of yet. Your example is a vanilla case of an adult abusing their power and the dependency of the children on her to manipulate sex out of the deal.The fact that she is a woman changes nothing. The fact that she feels terrible about it changes nothing. The fact that the boys mother doesn't care that he was abused changes nothing. So either we need a new example, or you could just make your point.

I would certainly sepearate the child abuser from the children and contact the authorities. She is a criminal abuser of children, and no amount of housework makes up for the fact that she couldn't keep her dick in her pants when it mattered most. Thought that was kind of obvious from my post. P.S. The genders make a difference in YOUR perceptions, not mine.

I am going to go out a limb here and make the claim that a prerequisite for a person being able to care for children is the ability to not have sex with them. I realize this is an example, but I don't think it illustrates anything but an adult female taking advantage of a child, and then his own mother making excuses for Mary's criminal behavior, while igonoring the injustice done to the child. I don't have stats but I can speak anecdotely about boys I know that were abused by adult female caregivers when they were young. They grew up to be not very well adjusted adults, have issues with promiscuity, and struggle with suicidal thoughts 20 years after the fact. When it was happening to them they thought it was great. Now not so much. I am willing to hear more examples, but I have to be honest, I don't think there is one. Your call. As far as what would I do? Change "Mary" to "John" and "step son" to "step daughter" and it becomes pretty clear what needs to be done.

This does not make sense to me. Can you give me an example?

One would have to be omniscient or think themselves to be in order to objectively measure harms. How a person "feels" can be completely irrelevant to their situation. For example a common occurence on the call in show is a person describes their childhood, professes to Stef that they love their parents, their parents love them, and then Stef points out why neither of these things are true, in spite of the way that the person may feel. So to answer your question about adults having sex with children, I would have to say that the way the child feels about the situation is irrelevant because they are incapable of seeing the situation they are in with the same clarity as an adult. The child may enjoy the sex, and be in love, but it doesn't change the fact that the adult is using a huge emotional and intellectual advantage to influence the behavior of the child, which by the way IS harm.

I am having trouble understanding how the issues zMorris puts forward (besides the criticism of FDR n the current top post) would have caused FDR posters to "badger" him. I don't really see anything in here that my impression of the average FDR-er would be terribly suprised or offended by. ZMorris, are you sure you aren't projecting said badgerment? Or maybe you are interpreting a thing one or two people said as being the opinions of the majority on here?

Ellie, on a lighter note, I assume you are posting from a phone or tablet and you are now yet another innocent victim of the infamous autocorrect.

I didn't say that your frustration came from being female. Here is what I said: Now you can plainly see that I say that BOTH men and women are trained to view sympathy for the male pespective with suspicion and contempt. Interesting that you missed the word "men" in that sentence. ;P