kiddie diddling

[Friday]

A charge of a sex offense is a pretty big deal. Enough so that many really smart, compassionate people instantly stop thinking...

I agree, to a certain extent.

Incest thrives on secrecy and putting out false images.

I really have no idea how prevalent incest is, but I would definitely agree this applies to rape, which I find terribly sad.  People don't generally feel guilty and ashamed if they get robbed or beat up; why do they so often feel that way if they get raped?

(And as someone who was diddled by my parents, knowing how that impacted my personal development, I have to wonder if the damage to the girl isn't more in the heads of the adults in that court room than it is in her.)

This is the second time I've seen you post this online.  I hate to go there, but... could you elaborate?  When you say your parents, do you mean your biological mother *and* father?  And when you say you were "diddled", do you mean something along the lines of tickling your privates, which you most likely found hilarious at the time?  Or do you mean it in what I think is the standard sense, meaning they touched your genitals for their own sexual pleasure?  If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying that whatever it was, you don't feel it harmed your emotional development.  If so, that's great for you.  I will go out on a limb and share something I have never shared before; I had a similar experience (but NOT with a family member, I am very grateful to say), and I also don't feel that it damaged me in any way.  I think the guy was a fucking perv, and I remain baffled why anyone would be into that sort of thing.  But I place no blame on *myself* for what he did to me.  There are scary monsters and freaks out there.   

But I'd hazard to say that people like us who have spent a lot of time thinking deep thoughts about human nature, personal responsibility, crime, law, culture, etc. are, right or wrong, not in sync with the vast majority of others.  So I'm not sure it's reasonable to extrapolate that, because that experience didn't damage you, it won't, or *shouldn't*, damage other children.

Personally, I think it's morally wrong to pursue sexual activities with someone who is either too young/mentally incompetent to comprehend the full significance of what you're doing to them (whether or not the child feels damaged by it later), or too small/weak/dependent/incapacitated to sincerely protest if that's what they want to do (which is the position that any child is in in relation to a parent, adult relative, much elder sibling, etc.).  The rightness or wrongness of it shouldn't be judged by the impact it has on the child; if that were the case, then you could also argue that there's nothing wrong with screwing a girl who is passed out drunk, as long as you don't get her pregnant or diseased.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I really have no idea how prevalent incest is, but I would definitely agree this applies to rape, which I find terribly sad.

Incest is the most common form of sexual abuse. Something like 70% of all sexual abuse is incest.

People don't generally feel guilty and ashamed if they get robbed or beat up; why do they so often feel that way if they get raped?

My personal theory? Because sex is stigmatized in American society. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power BUT it is inherently sexual. If someone violates your boundaries and your space, it's bad. But if they violate your sexual boundaries, it's somehow even worse. From childhood, people are taught to protect their "privates". Nudity is frowned upon. Masturbation and self exploration is considered "dirty". Society imposes strict sexual gender roles and sexual orientation is actually defined in our society.

People have all kinds of mixed, conflicting feelings about sex. Factor this into the alienation, vulnerability and fear people have after being the vicitim of any kind of actual crime and you start to get a quagmire of self-doubt, misplaced responsibility and shame.

This is the second time I've seen you post this online.  I hate to go there, but... could you elaborate?

I'm fine discussing it. Actually, I do when I get the chance.

When you say your parents, do you mean your biological mother *and* father?

My biological mother and her husband, my step-father.

And when you say you were "diddled", do you mean something along the lines of tickling your privates, which you most likely found hilarious at the time?  Or do you mean it in what I think is the standard sense, meaning they touched your genitals for their own sexual pleasure?

I use the term "diddled" there somewhat for iconoclasm. I say I "freebase tobacco" when I smoke for kind of the same reason. It takes something loaded and charged and flips it on it's head. I don't mean to downplay the severity of what happens to some folks, but I have found that by doing that, people ask questions about it that they might not otherwise do.

Both of my parents fondled my genitals for their pleasure. They had me touch theirs. I have one memory of performing oral sex on my step-father. I don't remember it, but the police reports from then said that my mother had performed oral sex on me.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying that whatever it was, you don't feel it harmed your emotional development.  If so, that's great for you.

This is why I bring it up now and then, honestly. When I was a kid (between 3 and 5 when that stuff happened), I had no understanding of what sex was. This means I didn't understand the responsibility of what sex was, but on the flip side, I hadn't yet learned of the stigma associated with sex either. My parents were my parents, and they'd touched my shoulders and chest before while giving me a bath and nobody else was allowed to touch my shoulders and chest. So the sexual stuff was just another boundary that my parents crossed that nobody else did. Being touched in those ways didn't make me feel ashamed or hurt. I had no idea those kinds of tough SHOULD have hurt me.

What really screwed me up was how everyone around me reacted. First, I got the very clear "OMG, You're a victim, I'm so sorry!" but I had no idea why I should be hurt. This planted the "there's something wrong with me" seed. As I got somewhat older, I was taught by the media and my classmates that "being a fag was bad" and the male machismo said "if you were touched by a man and didn't want to kill him, you're a fag". Now, I'm not gay, but without knowing that at the early age, I felt as if I had a weird sense of sexual identity forced upon my by others.

There was also my family, who more or less ignored that I existed prior to moving out of my mother's home. While all these things were brewing and my insecurities were developing, I had no way to express any of this stuff. Again, the key that allows incest to happen is that it's a secret. Nobody likes talking about it, even 'that it happens' and far, far, far fewer people know themselves enough to identify and pinpoint how they feel from certain things. This leads to emotional isolation, not recovery, not justice.

But I'd hazard to say that people like us who have spent a lot of time thinking deep thoughts about human nature, personal responsibility, crime, law, culture, etc. are, right or wrong, not in sync with the vast majority of others.  So I'm not sure it's reasonable to extrapolate that, because that experience didn't damage you, it won't, or *shouldn't*, damage other children.

I do feel damaged, and I sort of put the sexual stuff as the foundation of it. But I don't feel it was the actual sexual acts that damaged me. I'm not a member of NAMBLA. I don't advocate people have sex with children. There are certainly traumatizing aspects to child sex.

What I want to do isn't change how people see child sex. I want to change how people relate to it. I want to encourage people to talk about their experiences. I want to build an environment were people can talk about how they're impacted by it. I truly do feel that the "you're a victim" and "you've been harmed in ways that can't ever be fathomed" stereotypes isolated me more than the actual "abuse" did. I'm an individualist. I think the emphasis in any situation like this should be on how the person involved thinks and feels. As libertarians, we blame the court system for punishing offenders rather than helping restore victims, and I think there's a social aspect of this too.

The rightness or wrongness of it shouldn't be judged by the impact it has on the child;

I understand the points you make, and I don't mean to take this line out of context. To me, the non-aggression principle is the measure of right and wrong. And crossing into the real of wrong justifies the use of force.

Rape is wrong, and I'd have no problem with someone putting holes in a rapist to prevent it. But I have some serious misgivings philisophically with classing something as wrong if even the "victim" claims no damage.

On a more personal and less philosophical perspective, I've forgiven my parents. If I can bring myself to that point, I would prefer if other people could as well. Classing them as child molesters and aggressors and discarding their humanity and capacity to change and make right gets in the way of this. I really think victims should be the arbiter of the amount of damage, and later, if they choose, the level of forgiveness they offer. They're two faces of the same coin, and I really think only a victim can offer forgiveness.

[KBCraig]

I really have no idea how prevalent incest is, but I would definitely agree this applies to rape, which I find terribly sad.

Incest is the most common form of sexual abuse. Something like 70% of all sexual abuse is incest.

That's interesting. Are you including step-relatives, or others similary situated (like live-in partners) when you say "incest"? I've always defined incest as happening between immediate blood relatives, and I've heard it said many times that the most common source of sexual abuse is an unmarried mother's live-in boyfriend.

Oh, and thank you for taking on this topic.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

That's interesting. Are you including step-relatives, or others similary situated (like live-in partners) when you say "incest"?

Yes. Granted, I'm putting this from memory and a lot of sources and many are likely to have some quirks. And nobody's ever made a statistic without something to prove. But this number would likely include extended family. Live-in boyfriends likely are counted in this, as would step-mothers.

It would also include blood family outside the home, cousins and aunts.

For example... the guy I mentioned, my mom's husband, wasn't always her husband. I believe it began when he lived with us but before they married. It's likely included in those numbers.

Oh, and thank you for taking on this topic.

No problem. Friday brought it up.

I don't think I've ever brought it up without someone ultimately coming to me and relating to my situation. The people involved, the feelings, the ages, those usually change but the "me too" usually comes out of the woodwork.

I also like to talk about what generated the feelings I had. First, tons and tons of men experience things like I have, but the number who admit to them and seek any form of help for it is extremely rare. I was one of the people that DID have the opportunity to, but even then I felt a lot of the "recovery" material was complete BS that didn't really relate to how I felt. Perhaps I'm a super-minority, a man who was "abused" but doesn't feel the abuse itself was harmful. That might be the case. But somehow, I suspect not. I suspect that there are more folks who have been stigmatized and marginalized by the way society reacts to "victims" and can't even pinpoint WHY they're not able to move on.

[Friday]

KD, thanks for your willingness to discuss your personal experience so openly.  Maybe I've lead a sheltered life, but I have never heard someone I knew personally discuss such a thing.

Regarding your comment that you're hesitant to consider something a crime if there is no victim, I was talking in terms of morality, not crime.  And while I understand your viewpoint philosophically, I'm going to stick with my gut and still think it's way wrong to use little kids to get your rocks off.  Discussing this topic has made me reexamine my own experience and consider other aspects of it, and I find myself feeling a lot less nonchalant about it than I did last night.  Anywho... 

That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger, I always say.   

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I'm going to stick with my gut and still think it's way wrong to use little kids to get your rocks off.

In case this isn't clear, let me state it outright. I don't think child molestation is okay. When there's ACTUAL harm, there is a victim. There is a crime. There is unethical action. In a situation where someone is hurt, my heart goes out to them.

What I challenge is the notion that sexual contact ITSELF is ALWAYS damaging. And I know you may disagree with that, and that's understandable. I just wanted to make sure I spelled my point out clearly. It's not my intention to ignore anybody's pain when they've actually been harmed.

[lildog]

I'm going to stick with my gut and still think it's way wrong to use little kids to get your rocks off.

Any time someone is used to "get your rocks off" and they either did not give moral consent or they are either not of the age to give or have the mental capacity to give that consent then it's wrong.

[BillKauffman]

People don't generally feel guilty and ashamed if they get robbed or beat up; why do they so often feel that way if they get raped?

People actually do feel a sense of shame when their personal boundaries have been violated because they feel incredibly vulnerable as the result.

There is healthy shame and toxic shame. Healthy shame is the realization that one is not god-like but have limits and thus actually vulnerable to transgressions. Healthy shame brings the realization that we need the active help of others on this planet to survive.

The problem with kids is that when they are emotionally abandoned by important adults in their life (being used for sexual enjoyment - an adult need - by another without explicit consent is being abandoned) they internalize the shame into "I must be worthless" (why would the person who is suppose to love and protect me abandon me?) and their primary ego defenses automatically create a "false sense of self" to project to the world.

The manifestation of this false sense of self because of toxic, shame-based, inter-personal dynamics is a major major problem we all face.

[www]

The problem with kids

It is interesting to me that this thread has been read 219 times and only contains 8 posts. Almost a taboo subject to talk about, yet one of widespread interest. What we have seen over the years is the same sort of escalation of consequences as we saw in the drug wars. Both are very prevalent - drug use and child molestation. And in both cases severe consequences plays no role in reducing the number of incidents. And in both cases we need to back up and take a fresh look at the approach we are taking, as the one we are on clearly is not working. Hopefully we can reverse this course and take an approach that works better. We know what to do in the case of drug use - honest education and free cocaine and heroin in a clinical setting to anyone addicted. Any suggestions on what to do instead in the case of child molestation? My guess is that inviting them to come to PTA meetings and talk about their perversion would work better than sending them to prison/identifying them as sex offenders. Shunning someone from society never works.

[dalebert]

I talked about this subject on last week's FTL (2009/12/03 I think). I'm largely in agreement. To sum up, I said that people speak out in favor of really barbaric treatment of people they deem to be "bad" so that they can demonstrate that they are "good" or at least not bad people themselves. It's a bit like an insecure person putting down someone else to feel better about themselves, only darker and scarier, because it's an all too convenient excuse to advocate for horrible violence and/or horribly inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.

I'm all for finding better ways of preventing these abuses of children and completely sick of elaborate justifications for treating human beings like animals, things that don't work anyway.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I talked about this subject on last week's FTL (2009/12/03 I think)

12/04 seemed heavyly "sex offender" oriented.

[John]

People actually do feel a sense of shame when their personal boundaries have been violated because they feel incredibly vulnerable as the result.
[...]

I think that if/when there are feelings of shame, those feelings are the legitimate result of guilt. HOWEVER, the only usual reason one feels guilt after being violated comes as the result of the HATRED which may develop, particularly (as I mentioned in the other thread) after the authority figures in the child's life teach them HATRED and REVENGE.

There can also be MISPLACED feelings of guilt and shame if/when the VICTIM is made to feel dirty IF they found some pleasure.

Sometimes the victim will have feelings of guilt and shame associated with the ill will they feel towards the people who are putting ideas of HATRED and REVENGE into their heads. These feelings of ill will can be particularly confusing as they are directed toward the very people who claim to be helping them.

So, (I believe) that the very people who tell the child that their "innocents has been stolen" are (generally) the very people stealing it - by the teaching HATRED and REVENGE.

Hatred is like a loaded gun - pointing back at the victim. Hatred is much more likely to ruin the life of a victim than any original crime.

From hatred comes feelings of guilt; from guilt comes the shame.

[Sam A. Robrin]

people speak out in favor of really barbaric treatment of people they deem to be "bad" so that they can demonstrate that they are "good" or at least not bad . . .  it's an all too convenient excuse to advocate for horrible violence and/or horribly inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.

From T. S. Eliot's "The Cocktail Party":

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.
They don't mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.

[KBCraig]

Here's a good article about sexual shame being far more damaging than sex.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/11/sexting-hysteria-drives-teen-t

[lildog]

To sum up, I said that people speak out in favor of really barbaric treatment of people they deem to be "bad" so that they can demonstrate that they are "good" or at least not bad people themselves.

Dale, if you sexually assault someone that isn't something deemed bad, it is bad.  There is clear harm being done to someone.

It's not like drugs or prostitution where there is no one receiving harm.  If person A causes harm to person B then person A is bad.  If person A does something person B sees as morally wrong but it doesn't cause anyone harm then your above statement would work, but not when there is actual harm.  Then it has nothing to do with "deeming" anything, someone is clearly wrong and/or bad.

As with any criminal I think two things need to be considered.
- The first and most important is what can be done to prevent this person from ever harming anyone else again.
- If after preventing the criminal from ever harming anyone again there is an option to rehabilitate them then that should be considered but only after it can be shown they cannot harm anyone further.

One thing that puzzles me here is usually those of you here are the hardest of the hard core libertarians.  You object to anything and everything that involves taking money from others by force for things you object to.  Yet here it sees some are taking the "liberal" view that criminals should be rehabilitated, maybe I'm reading too far into some of the posts.  To rehabilitate someone you need money to do it and unless someone is donating to help the criminals that money must be taken by force from people who object.  Isn't that the very root of most of our problems?  Government taking money for things some of us see worthy and other objecting to?