Sandusky says he only 'horsed around' with boys., page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 18-11-2011 @ 03:07 PM by gwydionblack
reply to post by WarminIndy



I explained it and yet you dismiss it because it goes against your diatribe. You would like justification for your own lax moral views about sex and no one on here is going to justify it for you.


This is what YOU said: (your "answer" in bold)


You asked what is wrong with a child and an adult showering together as long as it is a responsible adult. My answer is this, a responsible adult would never shower with a child.


So let's see...

"What is wrong with a child and an adult showering together, so long as it is a responsible adult?"

The question wasn't "what do you consider a responsible adult", because frankly I don't give a damn.

The question was "WHAT IS WRONG..." with the situation at hand. Your answer does NOT answer the question. Don't sit here and tell me it does because if this was some kind of test, you just got the answer wrong. Your answer is very fitting of a politician during a debate, running circles around the question without answering the question.

Now once again... WHAT IS WRONG with a child and an adult, with no sexual intentions, showering together?








I'm not a nudist nor do I want to be one. I respect nudists rights to do what they will. But once again you are proving your ignorance by saying that just because there are a couple bad eggs in a bunch, that must mean that all nudists are raving child molesters. Just as you clearly believe that all adults who have ever showered with children, have also raped those children. You blame the sex abuse in Slovakia on group showers, yet you fail to realize that the same thing is happening in places that DON'T practice group showers... but you continue to link them.

Your correlations are completely unjustified and yes, it is a LOGICAL FALLACY. Allow me to point out to you exactly which logical fallacies you are using in your arguments.

Ad ignorantiam - an argument from ignorance stating that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.

This is your belief of Sandusky's inherent and undebatable guilt.

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc - This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related

This is your biggest uh oh to date. You assume that showers and nudity are somehow related to child rape and molestation, simply because it has happened before in those situations. I could say, using the same logic, that murder occurs in automobiles, and thus automobiles are a cause for murder. BUT, it just doesn't work.


reply posted on 18-11-2011 @ 04:00 PM by WarminIndy
reply to post by gwydionblack


I don't think I should have to go back through the thread to find the posts of you saying there is nothing wrong with adults exposing themselves to children. There has been plenty of cases of conditioning children. And the only thing you tried to post as facts were your singular definition of sex, abuse and shower. But you have provided no evidence other than your own opinion about why nudity-which you referred to- and showering with children should be acceptable.

So now, in the true spirit of debate, show links, show pictures, show any facts to support your claims outside of your own opinion, which your "debate" has been all along. And I told you that I am not debating, you want to think I am but I am not. I am giving you facts and links which you do not read, nor have a desire to answer questions either. Let's discuss sex abuse, shall we?

Child sexual abuse includes any activity that uses a child to create sexual gratification either in you or in others. Although the touching of children as a sign of affection and for hygiene is considered normal and necessary, there is a way to distinguish normal touching from child sexual abuse. The key is the intention by the perpetrator to be sexually aroused by the activity or the intention to create sexual arousal in others. The intent to use children in any way to create sexual arousal is illegal. This is criminal behavior that is aggressively prosecuted and severely punished by our legal system.


Activities can include any conventional adult sexual activity with a child. Also included are acts such as touching the child's genitals or fondling with the intention of arousing sexual feelings.


Showering with children is not a conventional adult activity, and Sandusky is accused of non-conventional sexual activity. BTW, a grand jury presentment means that a grand jury in a courtroom determined there was enough evidence of guilt, a grand jury already found him guilty and because he plead not guilty, that means he will have another day in court.

www.emedicinehealth.com...

Sexual Acts The sexual acts that will be described in this section are abusive clinically when the factors discussed in the previous section are present as the examples illustrate. The sexual acts will be listed in order of severity and intrusiveness, the least severe and intrusive being discussed first. Noncontact acts Offender making sexual comments to the child - Example: A coach told a team member he had a fine body, and they should find a time to explore one another's bodies. He told the boy he has done this with other team members, and they had enjoyed it. Offender exposing intimate parts to the child, sometimes accompanied by masturbation. - Example: A grandfather required that his 6-year-old granddaughter kneel in front of him and watch while he masturbated naked. Voyeurism (peeping). - Example: A stepfather made a hole in the bathroom wall. He watched his stepdaughter when she was toileting (and instructed her to watch him). Offender showing child pornographic materials, such as pictures, books, or movies. - Example: Mother and father had their 6- and 8-year-old daughters accompany them to viewings of adult pornographic movies at a neighbor's house.


www.getceusnow.com...

You also said pornography was OK, and felt some forms of pornography were educational.

The clinical definition of sex abuse includes "intimate parts of the body", which you have defended by calling mere nudity. The law and the medical community takes a different view than you do. And you not only defended parents showering with their children, but adults not related to children.

At age 3, most children begin to understand modesty. extension.missouri.edu...

Sandusky not only showered with the boys, he conditioned them with gifts.
Child grooming involves psychological manipulation in the form of positive reinforcement and foot-in-the-door tactics, using activities that are typically legal but later lead to illegal activities. This is done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being. Additionally, a trusting relationship with the family means the child's parents are less likely to believe potential accusations.[5]


The shower was merely one place where the sex took place.


reply posted on 18-11-2011 @ 04:21 PM by Anthropormorphic
Originally posted by gwydionblack

NUDITY IS NOT SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

Correct in theory....and playboy and playgirl are marketed for the articles, not the nude photos.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
I don't care what you or the rest of people believe -


I pointed this out about you already. It was good of you to confirm it. You do not care what the rest of people believe. You're going on and on about how YOUR ideals about sexuality are the correct ones. The way YOU feel is the way it is, period.

Originally posted by gwydionblack

SHOWERING DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEX.


If you want to boil it down to the lowest common denominator, ever seen the movie "porky's"? It hasn't become a cult favorite the world over, because of it's glaring inaccuracies about sexuality and hyjinx. You 've also claimed that men and women showering together is ok. Yes, in the unicorn and rainbows world, it is. In this world, if you put teenage boys in the showers with teenage girls, you would have all sorts of issues, not the least of which that males, often become fully engorged on visual stimulation only (though in your opinion nudity doesn't have anything to do with sex...) While this is a purely physiological effect, it's an effect none the less, and yes, it IS sexual.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
EXPOSING BODY PARTS DOES NOT TEACH ANYTHING ABOUT SEXUAL FUNCTIONS.


Right, exposure of mature sexual organs to immature children (immature sexually and emotionall) just goes unnoticed. Wrong. While you have stated that you have no problems showering with a child, you clearly do not have any children yourself, or at the very least, have not thought about HOW children learn about sexuality. Exposing your sexual organs in the shower DOES bring up issues of sexuality.

If you want facts, according to the American Academy of Pediatricians, PARENTS ( it doesn't speak to strangers who want to shower with kids) who wish to shower with their kids....
should be prepared for some curiosity and perhaps even touching of body parts. This is to be expected as preschoolers are naturally curious about their body and any differences with others that they notice. If you are ready for this behavior or for any questions your child might ask, then you will be able to handle the issue easily.



CORRECT.

So when Jerry Sandusky, or Joe Blow decides to bring a child into a shower and just have "naked horseplay" is he acting as a responsible adult? NO. Even standing there with his "mature" sexual organs/pubic hair would not go unnoticed by a curious CHILD who does not understand the differences yet between himself and an adult male. A responsible adult realises this. PERIOD. CHILDREN are called CHILDREN because they are young, they are still being taught about life and nurtured in life by their parent. Young children are learning, its why we call them children and we protect them from certain things, and don't make ASSUMPTIONS of how mature they are, or what they're able to process or understand until after they're referred to as ADULTS. Some things need to be explained to children so they understand and does not ASSUME that he can "just shower" with a CHILD.

It's why, when in a position of HAVING to shower with a CHILD or CHILDREN, coaches,counselors, etc will leave on swim trunks. They're not being silly about their bodies, they're not being prudish, they're being responsible enough to realise that they're in the shower with a CHILD and as such are not making the assumption that the CHILD has been spoken to, at the very least, about the differences they will see.

Do you realise that MOST adults will not even ASSUME that it is ok for a CHILD to eat a certain type of food or drink without first asking that childs parents if it's ok? Let alone just jumpin 'into the shower with their kids? Innocent or not!

Originally posted by gwydionblack
You are absolutely, 100% wrong if you think otherwise,


You really don't see how saying this makes you an enormous hypocrite?

edit on 18-11-2011 by Anthropormorphic because: spelling


reply posted on 18-11-2011 @ 07:22 PM by gwydionblack
reply to post by WarminIndy


You still didn't answer the question and I am going to stand by the belief that you, or anyone else for that matter, is going to be able to.

My side of this debate has been my ability to not pass prejudgement and accept the possibility of all outcomes to a given situation. I have said it and I will say it again, I do not find any harm in adults showering with children, so long as the adult has no sexual intentions or motives. If a child asks any questions, why can't one simply tell the truth? After all, they are supposed to learn about bodily organs, so what does the truth hurt.

But, it seems after all the "NON-SEXUAL" shower vibes I try to convey to you, you still believe the shower and nudity to be sexual, when it is up to individual reaction and handling of situations to determine if a situation is sexual in nature. I've already listed the things that are sexual by default, and showering and nudity are not one of them.



Child sexual abuse includes any activity that uses a child to create sexual gratification either in you or in others. Although the touching of children as a sign of affection and for hygiene is considered normal and necessary, there is a way to distinguish normal touching from child sexual abuse. The key is the intention by the perpetrator to be sexually aroused by the activity or the intention to create sexual arousal in others. The intent to use children in any way to create sexual arousal is illegal. This is criminal behavior that is aggressively prosecuted and severely punished by our legal system.



You've just proven my point with your own argument. Sexual abuse includes activities used to create sexual gratification.

Now allow me to ask the same question I have been asking, but simplified to what you posted.

Do showers provide sexual gratification?

Does nudity provide sexual gratification?

Allow me to answer those questions for you. No and... let me see... that's right... NO. So therefore, my argument still holds its stones:

Showering =/= Sexual Abuse.
Nudity =/= Sexual Abuse.

Period.






Showering with children is not a conventional adult activity, and Sandusky is accused of non-conventional sexual activity.


No, showering with children is not a "conventional adult activity", but neither is it a sexual activity... in which you definition above stated:


Activities can include any conventional adult sexual activity with a child


Pretty sure we've established that showering is not a "conventional adult sexual activity" nor is nudity. You know what is? Sex. Fondling of genitalia. Fellatio. And other various sexual advances.

You know what is not? Showering.



Sandusky not only showered with the boys, he conditioned them with gifts.


Allegedly.


The shower was merely one place where the sex took place.


Allegedly. That means there is yet to be proof.


reply posted on 18-11-2011 @ 07:32 PM by gwydionblack
reply to post by Anthropormorphic



Correct in theory....and playboy and playgirl are marketed for the articles, not the nude photos.


I don't see many people buying Playboy and Playgirl these days to get off. There are much more satisfying measures if you are into that sort of thing. You can throw this example around all you want, but nudity for the sake of bodily exposure and nudity for the sake of feeling free with your body and cleanliness are two entirely different animals.



I pointed this out about you already. It was good of you to confirm it. You do not care what the rest of people believe. You're going on and on about how YOUR ideals about sexuality are the correct ones. The way YOU feel is the way it is, period.


You take my quote out of context. I was referring to a singular statement. Hell, I should expect that considering the unending use of blanket statements and assumptions you have both already made.




If you want to boil it down to the lowest common denominator, ever seen the movie "porky's"?


Now society and logic is based off of a classic movie? I though humanity was a little bit smarter than taking their orders from works of fiction. How about we try using our brain instead?



Right, exposure of mature sexual organs to immature children (immature sexually and emotionall) just goes unnoticed.


Never said it would go unnoticed. I'm sure in some cases it would, you can't assume that 100% of situations would be the same. So what if a kid asks about genitalia? Don't have an answer?

"I use that to pee."

HOLY CRAP! That was just child molestation right there. Better throw me behind bars.




So when Jerry Sandusky, or Joe Blow decides to bring a child into a shower and just have "naked horseplay" is he acting as a responsible adult? NO. Even standing there with his "mature" sexual organs/pubic hair would not go unnoticed by a curious CHILD who does not understand the differences yet between himself and an adult male.


And I am sure that any mature individual would take the time to quell his curiosity by informing him about the mysteries of genitalia when provoked with such a question. Or will all people, when provoked with such a rouse, immediately gun towards wanted to molest that child? That is your world you live in, right?



Do you realise that MOST adults will not even ASSUME that it is ok for a CHILD to eat a certain type of food or drink without first asking that childs parents if it's ok? Let alone just jumpin 'into the shower with their kids? Innocent or not!


Yeah. I believe I clarified this earlier. Parents choice. If parents don't give permission to have group showers, then by all means, back off. However, to think that people would not be aware of group showers prior... just by giving a child permission to go to such a place and not researching goes to show bad parenting. If a parent gave a damn, and actually cared as to whether or not a group shower might threaten their child, they would lay down the ground rules beforehand.





You really don't see how saying this makes you an enormous hypocrite?



Once again, singular incident. Taking my quotes out of context is fun.

You know what else is fun, not answer my questions. So one more time, for anyone out there this time.





WHAT IS WRONG with a child
and an adult, with no sexual intentions,
showering together?


reply posted on 18-11-2011 @ 07:40 PM by WarminIndy
reply to post by gwydionblack


Grand jury presentment means a grand jury of 12 people found the evidence against him so compelling and accurate, that they determined him to be guilty. He then plead not guilty, therefore, this goes to trial. But a jury of 12 found it to be accurate evidence, therefore, no longer alleged.

The grand jurors listen to the evidence and decides if it establishes probable cause to believe the person the prosecutor wants to charge has committed the crime(s) the prosecutor claims. After they hear all the prosecutor's evidence, the jurors vote on a set of proposed charges--known as an "indictment"--which the prosecutor has drafted and gives to the grand jurors. If the grand jurors decide the evidence creates probable cause to believe the persons named in an indictment committed the crimes it charges them with, they vote to "return" the indictment, i.e., to charge the person with those crimes. Voting to return charges is usually known as "returning a true bill." If a grand jury votes to return a true bill, the indictment is valid and it initiates a criminal case against the people named as defendants in the indictment. A majority of the grand jurors must vote for an indictment in order to return a true bill.


It was the grand jury that called the children victims. The wording is not "Alleged victims" but victims.

And there has been enough links and information provided to you that defines nudity and exposure in regards to sexual abuse. I think you are just trying to get around societal standards and trying to create your own standards and expect the world to agree with you. This is the end of my conversation with you. Please be careful in the future, you might be speaking to the father or mother of an abuse victim, or you might be speaking to an abuse victim. If you continue trying to play devil's advocate, you might be asking for a lot of trouble for yourself.

But please, just stop the self-aggrandizing justifications for sex abuse. I will no longer comment to anything you say.


reply posted on 19-11-2011 @ 09:30 AM by gwydionblack
reply to post by WarminIndy


Again, how about you just answer the question.

I'm still waiting on an answer.
edit on 19-11-2011 by gwydionblack because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 19-11-2011 @ 06:56 PM by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by butcherguy


This Scum Bag Missed his calling , he should of become a Catholic Priest................


reply posted on 19-11-2011 @ 07:21 PM by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by brokensnipe


I know exactly who you are talking too and it's a waste of time. That person has been on here for DAYS defending this type of behavior; ignoring all cries of logic. He's not worth your time.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



Iranian sailors chase off pirates attacking U.S. ship
  Posted 5 days ago with 94 member flags
Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
  Posted 8 days ago with 73 member flags
Man Loses $22,000 In New \'Policing For Profit\' Case
  Posted 6 days ago with 63 member flags
Bin Laden died of natural causes: Former CIA agent
  Posted 9 days ago with 58 member flags
BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
  Posted 1 days ago with 53 member flags