GirlChat #604945

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Coming Out vs. the Toybox

Posted by EthanEdwards on Friday, October 31 2014 at 4:45:09PM
In reply to Re: Coming Out vs. the Toybox posted by Dissident on Friday, October 31 2014 at 09:02:36AM

If I addressed all your points we would be get into exponential post land, but a few:

the Virped position that what science says cannot be relied upon, and thus can be readily dismissed in favor of majority public sentiment.

This is not a VP position, and I don't think you believe it is either.
It is your very controversial inference about implications. You can make that claim, but to claim the result is a VP position is dirty pool.

VP would never endorse that statement, and I think you know that.

I could as soon say, "Dissident's position is in favor of more rape of adolescents". We could argue about whether in fact the policies you suggest would have that result, but you would have an air-tight argument in rejecting my characterization of it as your position.

Going to the source like Rind, Sandfort, Thompson, and others have--i.e., talking to individuals who have actually been involved in intergenerational liaisons as the youth participant, either in the present time (Sandfort) or in the past (Rind, Tromovich, et al.; Thompson)--and comparing and contrasting the data under strict scientific methodology and scrutiny is considerably more reliable

I have notes I made after reading a list of references you gave me last spring, and perhaps I could share them in more detail at some point. Sandfort's study is relevant to establishing the possibility that boys will not view relationships as harmful, but it is completely useless in suggesting that very few boys are harmed.

From Rind:

72% of females views their sexual activity as negative at the time, and 59% continued to view the activity as negative when surveyed.

The other data suggests it didn't ruin their lives, but this data still suggests it was negative. "Life-ruining" isn't a necessary requirement for saying something is wrong.

The matter isn't so "complicated" that science cannot sort out the likely facts using strict methodology.

I'd say it is complicated. For instance, the Rind studies were conducted in a social environment where adult-child sexual relationships were illegal. No one has studied an environment where they are legal -- more precisely, where a man can be free from a rape charge based on claiming consent.

The "complicated" excuse is often used to dismiss any available evidence that doesn't fit with common sentiment.

This is a fellow-traveler argument. No statistics, and assuming the worst.

even survivors of genuine abuse are iatrogenically conditioned and sociogenically encouraged by a certain pervasive school of thought to be "damaged" severely rather than heal, because it benefits a certain lucrative and socially influential industry

Some of that occurs. To say that the vast majority of harm comes from that is a giant conspiracy theory.

it's yet another way of finding an emotionally compelling rationale for putting moralistic values ahead of freedom of choice and civil liberties.

You assume my motives, a foregone conclusion, and a lack of integrity. I could with equal justification speculate that for you as an individual youth liberation is an emotionally compelling rationale for hoping to allow adult-child sex.






Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?