4 ms·

While I'm definitely willing to give the author a benefit of a doubt, I don't see how he says his writing got taken out of context... In fact, context is even w

by zavulon 17y ago

While I'm definitely willing to give the author a benefit of a doubt, I don't see how he says his writing got taken out of context... In fact, context is even worse than the quoted words. “What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s inappropriate.” It omitted the sentence immediately following: “This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact.” He wants to defend the original writing with showing the next sentences, where he writes "this excludes MOST adult/child sexual contact"? Really? Which adult/child sexual contact is ok, then? And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman" ... When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh.

eavc 17y ago
Technically, an 18 year-old girl and a 17 year-old boy would be an adult/child relationship. Also, based on what I just read, it seems he is using pedophilia to describe sexuality between children. Playing doctor. Regardless, it is clear that the spirit of Gawker's "He supports child abuse!" is way, way off.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
jafl5272 17y ago
Only developed countries have the idea that you're an adult at 18 instead of 13 (or puberty). An irresponsible 16 year old might still be called a kid, but a responsible 16 year old deserves to be treated as an adult.
jhuckestein 17y ago
I'm pretty certain from the larger context that he's saying that most adult/child contact is inappropriate (excluded from being okay) whereas little child/child contact is inappropriate. Maybe it's a grammar problem with those sentences. In all his writings his stance is consistent and well-defined.
Confusion 17y ago
Which adult/child sexual contact is ok, then? The problem with sexual contact between an adult and a child is that one can never be sure that the child wasn't coerced in some way. However, that does not make the inverse true, that every instance of sexual contact between an adult and a child is subject to (implicit) abuse of power. It seems to me that Moeller was making a subtle point that I have also made in discussions about the subject: that it is perfectly possible to imagine a situation where sexual contact between an child and an adult takes place with mutual consent and without coercion. One can imagine a 12 year old seducing a 30 year old neighbor, without either of them being harmed by the experience. In many discussions, this can be a relevant point, that defuse blanket statements. This does not change a thing about the fact that you want the law to forbid such things. And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman" ... When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh. These 'kids' are old enough to bear children and have done so during the majority of human history. They have all secondary sexual characteristics that are intended to arouse the males of the species and they are fertile. If you don't find some of them attractive, something is unusual with your hormones.
- tjic 17y ago
  > One can imagine a 12 year old seducing a 30 year old neighbor, without harming either of them. "One" can imagine that? I, for one, CAN NOT imagine that sexual contact between a 12 year old and a 30 year old can ever be anything other than a grave problem.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    There has been plenty of research into the way both men and women that have experienced early sexual contact rate those experiences later in their life, with many case stories. You would be surprised by the amount of positive experiences. They are only a minority and it doesn't change the way the law should be or the fact that we should disapprove of such encounters. However, it does change the 'ultimate evil' view that people tend to have of pedophilia. Like in the case of theft or murder, there are plenty of exceptions, where we can understand why someone would break the law. We may even sympathize with someone that kills an abusive husband or steals from Goldman-Sachs after losing everything. In the same way, we should be capable of sympathizing with some of the people that have committed an act of pedophilia.
cabalamat 17y ago
> And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman" ... When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh. Where I come from, people of that age can get married. There are current proposals, which will probably become law, allowing them to vote in elections. As others have pointed out, people of that age are generally fertile. To call someone who can get married, vote and bear children a child is, quite simply, silly.

by zavulon 17y ago

eavc 17y ago

Technically, an 18 year-old girl and a 17 year-old boy would be an adult/child relationship. Also, based on what I just read, it seems he is using pedophilia to describe sexuality between children. Playing doctor. Regardless, it is clear that the spirit of Gawker's "He supports child abuse!" is way, way off.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

jafl5272 17y ago

Only developed countries have the idea that you're an adult at 18 instead of 13 (or puberty). An irresponsible 16 year old might still be called a kid, but a responsible 16 year old deserves to be treated as an adult.

jhuckestein 17y ago

I'm pretty certain from the larger context that he's saying that most adult/child contact is inappropriate (excluded from being okay) whereas little child/child contact is inappropriate. Maybe it's a grammar problem with those sentences. In all his writings his stance is consistent and well-defined.

Confusion 17y ago

Which adult/child sexual contact is ok, then? The problem with sexual contact between an adult and a child is that one can never be sure that the child wasn't coerced in some way. However, that does not make the inverse true, that every instance of sexual contact between an adult and a child is subject to (implicit) abuse of power. It seems to me that Moeller was making a subtle point that I have also made in discussions about the subject: that it is perfectly possible to imagine a situation where sexual contact between an child and an adult takes place with mutual consent and without coercion. One can imagine a 12 year old seducing a 30 year old neighbor, without either of them being harmed by the experience. In many discussions, this can be a relevant point, that defuse blanket statements. This does not change a thing about the fact that you want the law to forbid such things. And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman" ... When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh. These 'kids' are old enough to bear children and have done so during the majority of human history. They have all secondary sexual characteristics that are intended to arouse the males of the species and they are fertile. If you don't find some of them attractive, something is unusual with your hormones.

tjic 17y ago
> One can imagine a 12 year old seducing a 30 year old neighbor, without harming either of them. "One" can imagine that? I, for one, CAN NOT imagine that sexual contact between a 12 year old and a 30 year old can ever be anything other than a grave problem.
- Confusion 17y ago
  There has been plenty of research into the way both men and women that have experienced early sexual contact rate those experiences later in their life, with many case stories. You would be surprised by the amount of positive experiences. They are only a minority and it doesn't change the way the law should be or the fact that we should disapprove of such encounters. However, it does change the 'ultimate evil' view that people tend to have of pedophilia. Like in the case of theft or murder, there are plenty of exceptions, where we can understand why someone would break the law. We may even sympathize with someone that kills an abusive husband or steals from Goldman-Sachs after losing everything. In the same way, we should be capable of sympathizing with some of the people that have committed an act of pedophilia.

cabalamat 17y ago

> And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman" ... When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh. Where I come from, people of that age can get married. There are current proposals, which will probably become law, allowing them to vote in elections. As others have pointed out, people of that age are generally fertile. To call someone who can get married, vote and bear children a child is, quite simply, silly.