He is NOT saying that children can or should be able to legally consent to a sexual relationship with adults.
He goes on to fully say that "even the most voluntary of these relationships are considered sex crimes."
He's saying that children can THINK they're consenting to a sexual relationship with adults. They're wrong, but they don't know that.
Many of you have kids, and know that they're going to start seeing themselves as independent and adult LONG before they actually are. They're going to do stupid shit because they think they're adult enough to handle it.
Finkelhor's is saying that if you approach some children rescued from a predatory relationship and tell them they're safe now, they will respond with, "No, you didn't rescue me. I loved him. I made a choice to be there. You just don't understand our love."
Which is a problem if you're trying to keep this from happening to that child again.
"If young people are initiating sexual activities with adults, or enthusiastically involved," he said, "we can't be effective in working with them if we assume that all such relationships start with a predatory or criminally inclined adult. As we've seen in the discussion, young people bridle at being forced into this box of being seen as being the victim of a predator."
In other words, if a 14-year old girl thinks she's consenting to sex with a 22 year old man, she's going to roll her eyes at the notion she was victimized. SHE WAS VICTIMIZED, but if she doesn't accept it, then we have to approach her psychological recovery differently.
And this can happen without being groomed (although grooming is often the case).
His position on this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the pedophiles involved.
This is EXCLUSIVELY about how we approach treating children who are victims of sex crimes.
It is Finkelhof's view that "there are reasons for learning about what the dynamics are and how to talk about them so that we can better help the young people who are in these situations."
A child who was kidnapped, tied up, and raped is going to be terrified of being in that situation ever again. We don't have to worry about her seeking out her rapist after she's done with treatment.
A child who was groomed or otherwise believes that they consented to the sexual relationship could actually SEEK THAT OUT AGAIN. That child's chances of being revictimized are MUCH HIGHER. She could absolutely find some other pedophilic adult to have a relationship with.
And if we approach every single child victim assuming that they're going to be grateful for the rescue and respond to that worldview, then we're going to fail some children, and the result could very well be those children continuing to seek out dangerous relationships. Some of those child victims are going to RESENT the adults for separating them from a person they think they love.
The distinction between a child victim who "consented" and one who did not may not be important to you guys as far as outrage is concerned, and it shouldn't be! It's outrageous either way! It's a crime either way! It's repugnant either way! We all agree!
But that distinction ABSOLUTELY makes a difference when it comes to helping these children recover from this experience. Clinicians care about this difference. Finkelhor is a clinician who was talking about clinical approaches to child victims.
And since he was a clinician discussing clinician stuff with clinicians, then the context really matters for this.
I have a lot of shit on my plate for tonight and may not be able to respond, but I will try as I'm able.
You don't understand. You're not supposed to think logically about this issue. You're supposed to shut your brain off at the mere mention or even suggestion of pedophilia, cower in fear and OBEY.
I started out negatively responding to the name Finkelhor. I was certain he was an awful person as quoted, in this context. Reading your larger understanding of a therapist and the context he was speaking in, this is like a welcome slap on my face for pre- judging this human being with an unfortunate last name.
I was abused often by older more powerful people in rapes where it appeared voluntary at the time to myself. He's getting at this personal dilemma and explaining it to clinicians. Please, lets not shoot the messengers.
In being raped, you get aroused unavoidably, this leads to guilt and shame. This is the way it is.
You are correct. A knee-jerk reaction to this story without proper context would not only be misguided, but targeting someone who is a specialist in exactly the sort of work the Q movement is supposed to be championing.
Okay, please read this carefully and completely before jumping down my throat.
David Finkelhor specializes in working with child victims of sex crimes and has been doing so for decades.
https://www.unh.edu/ccrc/person/david-finkelhor
He is NOT saying that children can or should be able to legally consent to a sexual relationship with adults.
He's saying that children can THINK they're consenting to a sexual relationship with adults. They're wrong, but they don't know that.
Many of you have kids, and know that they're going to start seeing themselves as independent and adult LONG before they actually are. They're going to do stupid shit because they think they're adult enough to handle it.
Finkelhor's is saying that if you approach some children rescued from a predatory relationship and tell them they're safe now, they will respond with, "No, you didn't rescue me. I loved him. I made a choice to be there. You just don't understand our love."
Which is a problem if you're trying to keep this from happening to that child again.
In other words, if a 14-year old girl thinks she's consenting to sex with a 22 year old man, she's going to roll her eyes at the notion she was victimized. SHE WAS VICTIMIZED, but if she doesn't accept it, then we have to approach her psychological recovery differently.
And this can happen without being groomed (although grooming is often the case).
His position on this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the pedophiles involved.
This is EXCLUSIVELY about how we approach treating children who are victims of sex crimes.
A child who was kidnapped, tied up, and raped is going to be terrified of being in that situation ever again. We don't have to worry about her seeking out her rapist after she's done with treatment.
A child who was groomed or otherwise believes that they consented to the sexual relationship could actually SEEK THAT OUT AGAIN. That child's chances of being revictimized are MUCH HIGHER. She could absolutely find some other pedophilic adult to have a relationship with.
And if we approach every single child victim assuming that they're going to be grateful for the rescue and respond to that worldview, then we're going to fail some children, and the result could very well be those children continuing to seek out dangerous relationships. Some of those child victims are going to RESENT the adults for separating them from a person they think they love.
The distinction between a child victim who "consented" and one who did not may not be important to you guys as far as outrage is concerned, and it shouldn't be! It's outrageous either way! It's a crime either way! It's repugnant either way! We all agree!
But that distinction ABSOLUTELY makes a difference when it comes to helping these children recover from this experience. Clinicians care about this difference. Finkelhor is a clinician who was talking about clinical approaches to child victims.
And since he was a clinician discussing clinician stuff with clinicians, then the context really matters for this.
I have a lot of shit on my plate for tonight and may not be able to respond, but I will try as I'm able.
You don't understand. You're not supposed to think logically about this issue. You're supposed to shut your brain off at the mere mention or even suggestion of pedophilia, cower in fear and OBEY.
I started out negatively responding to the name Finkelhor. I was certain he was an awful person as quoted, in this context. Reading your larger understanding of a therapist and the context he was speaking in, this is like a welcome slap on my face for pre- judging this human being with an unfortunate last name.
I was abused often by older more powerful people in rapes where it appeared voluntary at the time to myself. He's getting at this personal dilemma and explaining it to clinicians. Please, lets not shoot the messengers.
In being raped, you get aroused unavoidably, this leads to guilt and shame. This is the way it is.
I am so sorry to hear that you went through that.
You are correct. A knee-jerk reaction to this story without proper context would not only be misguided, but targeting someone who is a specialist in exactly the sort of work the Q movement is supposed to be championing.
what else can I say,.......Jesus Saves!!!!!!!!!!
Username checks out. :)