From the combox at my post Making Room for Evil ...
Anonymous said...
[Quoting me] "pederasty is a sub-set of pedophilia"
No, it's not.
And I notice in your example of "comparing" child abuse, you couldn't actually bring yourself to present a true comparison between pederasty and pedophilia. Were you afraid they'd agree one was worse than the other?
September 12, 2012 8:43 PM
Kevin O'Brien said...
... of course pederasty is a subset of pedophilia. They are equally evil. What the hell is the matter with you?
September 13, 2012 4:43 AM
Anonymous said...
Statutory rape isn't necessarily the same thing [as "legitimate rape"], even if it's bad.
Put it this way:
A guy in his 20s wants to have sex with a 16-year-old girl who is physically an adult in every possible way.
A guy in his 20s wants to have sex with a 7-year-old boy.
Those are both the same thing to you? Surely not.
September 13, 2012 12:31 PM
Kevin O'Brien said...
Anonymous, if a 20-year-old is having sex with a sexually developed 16-year-old, it's still rape, since she does not have the mature capacity to consent. [Why do people not want to get this? This is what makes "statutory rape" rape, and commenters continue to ignore this.]
And if any 20-year-old were convicted of statutory rape in such a case, the judge would take their nearness of age into account when sentencing - but such a mitigating circumstance does not alter the essential fact that STATUTORY RAPE IS RAPE and is a violent act - as it forces an act onto a CHILD (pubescent or not) who does not have the capacity to consent to such an act.
So how about a 50 year old priest having sex with a 14 year old boy or girl who "wants it". Is that rape?
You're damn right it is.
It is absolutely horrific to me that people are trying to excuse statutory rape. Anonymous, your attitude is sinful and hurtful and frankly rather sick. [In fairness, Anonymous is not coming right out and excusing statutory rape in so many words, but that's what his argument logically and irrevocably implies, and it's an argument from hell. This is why Todd Akin's use of the phrase "legitimate rape", which implied - among other things - that molesting a child was not in fact rape, was so offensive to people.]
By the way, I'd like to hear from ONE PARENT who thinks that statutory rape is fine and dandy and quite excusable. My Facebook friend who defended it is not a parent; Dena Hunt who defends it is not a parent; Fr. Groeschel who makes excuses for it is not a parent.
My friends who are parents not only realize the limited capacity of post-pubescent children [try raising a few], but say things as sensible as this (from an email to me sent by a friend of mine who has kids) ...
It seems the upshot of all this is our mistaken notion that sperm-production makes the man and ovulation makes the woman. Since girls as young as 9 can ovulate, is it OK to have sex with them? Since 13 year old boys can typically produce sperm, does this mean they're "men"?
What in the hell is wrong with us???????
Priests are not molesting children in a vacuum. This is a culture, as Mark Shea points out, that despises virginity and hence despises children. When the laity winks at sexual relations between an adult male and a sexually developed but emotionally and intellectually vulnerable child, and even goes so far as to say that such children are fully capable of seducing adult men, we get what we get in the clergy - sexual abuse by priests and bishops enabling them.
How can we expect the clergy to reform if the laity believe such hateful things about the most vulnerable among us?
Anonymous said...
[Quoting me] "pederasty is a sub-set of pedophilia"
No, it's not.
And I notice in your example of "comparing" child abuse, you couldn't actually bring yourself to present a true comparison between pederasty and pedophilia. Were you afraid they'd agree one was worse than the other?
September 12, 2012 8:43 PM
Kevin O'Brien said...
... of course pederasty is a subset of pedophilia. They are equally evil. What the hell is the matter with you?
September 13, 2012 4:43 AM
Anonymous said...
Statutory rape isn't necessarily the same thing [as "legitimate rape"], even if it's bad.
Put it this way:
A guy in his 20s wants to have sex with a 16-year-old girl who is physically an adult in every possible way.
A guy in his 20s wants to have sex with a 7-year-old boy.
Those are both the same thing to you? Surely not.
September 13, 2012 12:31 PM
Kevin O'Brien said...
Anonymous, if a 20-year-old is having sex with a sexually developed 16-year-old, it's still rape, since she does not have the mature capacity to consent. [Why do people not want to get this? This is what makes "statutory rape" rape, and commenters continue to ignore this.]
And if any 20-year-old were convicted of statutory rape in such a case, the judge would take their nearness of age into account when sentencing - but such a mitigating circumstance does not alter the essential fact that STATUTORY RAPE IS RAPE and is a violent act - as it forces an act onto a CHILD (pubescent or not) who does not have the capacity to consent to such an act.
So how about a 50 year old priest having sex with a 14 year old boy or girl who "wants it". Is that rape?
You're damn right it is.
It is absolutely horrific to me that people are trying to excuse statutory rape. Anonymous, your attitude is sinful and hurtful and frankly rather sick. [In fairness, Anonymous is not coming right out and excusing statutory rape in so many words, but that's what his argument logically and irrevocably implies, and it's an argument from hell. This is why Todd Akin's use of the phrase "legitimate rape", which implied - among other things - that molesting a child was not in fact rape, was so offensive to people.]
By the way, I'd like to hear from ONE PARENT who thinks that statutory rape is fine and dandy and quite excusable. My Facebook friend who defended it is not a parent; Dena Hunt who defends it is not a parent; Fr. Groeschel who makes excuses for it is not a parent.
My friends who are parents not only realize the limited capacity of post-pubescent children [try raising a few], but say things as sensible as this (from an email to me sent by a friend of mine who has kids) ...
Simple hobbit that I am, I don't think it is possible in any way, size, shape or form for a teenager to "seduce" an adult. You don't need any sophisticated philosophical or theological or scientific arguments to show that. On the contrary, if you have to explain it to someone, that person is a Grade A dolt, and is not worth the effort.
It seems the upshot of all this is our mistaken notion that sperm-production makes the man and ovulation makes the woman. Since girls as young as 9 can ovulate, is it OK to have sex with them? Since 13 year old boys can typically produce sperm, does this mean they're "men"?
What in the hell is wrong with us???????
Priests are not molesting children in a vacuum. This is a culture, as Mark Shea points out, that despises virginity and hence despises children. When the laity winks at sexual relations between an adult male and a sexually developed but emotionally and intellectually vulnerable child, and even goes so far as to say that such children are fully capable of seducing adult men, we get what we get in the clergy - sexual abuse by priests and bishops enabling them.
How can we expect the clergy to reform if the laity believe such hateful things about the most vulnerable among us?
Comments