[lbo-talk] Penn State

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Fri Nov 11 08:06:34 PST 2011


On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:19 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:


> Shane:
>
> The topic is, was "consensual sex" a possibility or an
>> impossibility? My questions are basically: Are children capable of
>> voluntary behavior? And, assuming a positive answer to that
>> question: What is it about sex that makes it an exception? Since I
>> was convinced by Freud, as well as by experience, that humans are
>> sexual beings from the earliest infancy I find it hard to imagine an
>> argument for the proposition that sexual companionship is so
>> different from all other human urges that children cannot desire it
>> and voluntarily try to gratify their desire. But if anybody wishes
>> to offer such an argument I would be more than happy to enter into
>> dialogue on the topic.
>
> Let's see. Are children capable of voluntary behavior? Yes. But much
> much more likely with peers than with adults.
>
> Why is sex an exception?
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1) Sexuality is not one thing from birth to death. The sexuality of
> children is more of a general eroticism: food, touch, color, sounds,
> texture, temperature, scents are felt deeply and pervasively.
> Genital sexuality starts much much later (early to mid teens) and
> takes well over a decade to flower and mature.
>
> 2) Where sexual relations occur between men and children, they are
> likely to take place in a situation where the child loves, trusts,
> fears, admires, and is often completely dependent on the adult in
> question. They do not feel they have the freedom to say no. Also, it
> is not likely to be mutually exploratory play. The adult takes what
> he wants, and the child acquiesces. That's not likely to be much
> good for the child's sexual development or for their sense of
> boundaries. Moreover, the child has no right to talk about this
> experience with anyone else, to process it in a social way, and
> therefore his chance of figuring out whether it's a good or bad
> thing is almost nil.
>
> Finally, I have known exactly one person in my whole life who was
> involved in such a relationship and felt it was ok. Every single
> other person I know has been fairly deeply traumatized by it and I
> don't think this was simply because of social prejudice.

And Ravi wrote:

" I will try my own answer: there are two parts to it: one is that sexual companionship is not different from all others - it is equally vulnerable to manipulation as other “relationships” when it involves a child and an adult. The second is that, given such a premise of exploitation, we (humans) do rank violations (such as exploitation) by some scale of severity."

Ravi's and Joanna's statements are generalizations, and I have no reason to believe that any of them is wrong as a general proposition. But neither do I have any reason to believe that any of them fit some particular case about which I, and everybody else, have no information except a barrage of media verbiage. But of one thing I'm absolutely sure: all the traumatization supposedly suffered by Mr. Sandusky's partners doesn't add up to a small fraction of the trauma suffered by every single child torn from its parents by Obama's deportation campaign. Whatever punishment is administered to Sandusky should by multiplied in severity ten thousand times and administered to everybody involved in ICE from Obama down.

Shane Mage

"L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce qu'on a apporté."

Bardo Thodol



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list