GirlChat #605965

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

I'm not that fond of the book.

Posted by jd420 on Thursday, November 20 2014 at 07:50:01AM
In reply to Discuss: Lolita and child liberation posted by EthanEdwards on Thursday, November 20 2014 at 04:57:34AM

So here is the question. Suppose that they live in Child Liberation World, driving through the American West.

Oh, boy, cactus!

She's 13 years old.

Geriatric mother of several, check.

Suppose one day she tells a police officer that Humbert, her stepfather, is driving her around having sex with her all the time against her will and she doesn't want to stay with him. She agrees to accompany him to the police station to take her statement. But when there, afraid of what happens next, she says instead that she's consented to it all -- she just said she didn't because she was mad at him and now she wants to go back to him.

Yeah, well..

As I understand Child Liberation World, the police must just let her go.

That's the thing; you don't.

Your person-of-straw regarding it is interesting; if I had to speculate, I'd suggest...

I think this is a good case study of where child liberation does not do the right thing.

...that your need to reach the "right" conclusion prevents you from bothering with things as they are - you have to instead find an imaginary thing which justifies the conclusion you're trying - determined might be a better word - to attain.

So....

As I understand Child Liberation World...

Wanna see the break? It resides in a specific location and blots out a LOT.

when there, afraid of what happens next

There.

The key word (and a concept which you have never managed to functionally use, despite occasional attempts) is agency.

As such, it is functionally impossible to be "afraid of what happens next." It is possible to waffle between what happens next, but it is functionally impossible to be afraid of one's own choice and action in a meaningful way.

Conversely, in your preferred, no-child-liberated world, the combination of cookie-cutter false-dilemna ultimatums as a restricted choice set, coupled with the demonstrated tendancy of upping-the-ante, are a silencing technique which serves as barriers to reporting. So...

I think this is a good case study of where child liberation does not do the right thing.

Not even close.

The world you advocate can be summarized thus : "we'll toss you to the wolves if anything less than the full destruction of this person, coupled with harassing you, is not sufficient. We will not let you leave; we hold them and you as hostages. We will not let you access social services; we hold them and you as hostages. We will not let you live somewhere else and interact solely by visitation; we hold them and you as hostages..."

That's a lot of threats to keep someone silent. It's sort of like in school : don't talk to strangers - about daddy. They'll even back an abusive person up.

A world which asks "what do you want" and tries to make that happen does not have these barriers, and is not a world of silencing.

By the way...

She needs to go to foster care.

...the sexual assault rate in foster care is about 50% per household per year.

Will her next rapist be better, or worse, than the last? Since, you know, you chose to throw rape in as one more tool to up the ante to discourage actual reporting.

No, your world does not do better. It does not do well at all.


jd420





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?