Tags

, ,

Do CSA victimologists believe that young men under age 16 or 18 are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by having sex with adolescent girls of comparable age. What of the tens of millions of people they’ve vitiated with their theories and assertions, uncorroborated and chimerical and unknown to everyone until just recently in historical terms, as to how biological men under age 16 or even 18 are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by penetrating adult women in factually consensual relationships.

Obviously, love affairs between underage adolescents, heterosexual or homosexual, can be hurtful, e.g, the pain of rejection, of “unrequited love,” “broken hearts” and “hurt feelings,” etc., exactly as they are for adults. But such is a result of an affair that is ended by one of the partners, or a marriage that ends in divorce with adult males and females, and not of the sex in-itself.

I’m not a woman and have never been an adolescent girl. But in contrast to young men under age 18 and their simple and single-minded lusts, one can understand, without experiencing, the ambivalence of young women, especially those under statutory age, their reluctance to submit to pressure from a male and acquiesce to coitus given the unequal nature of penile-vaginal penetration both in respect to bodily sensations, pleasurable (invariably and intensely so for males) and painful (often and only for women), and the fear of an unwanted pregnancy, which often happens. And think of all the sexually disparate emotional/psychological ramifications. And physical effects if the girl is impregnated. One can understand, without direct experience, how they might feel “dirty,” “used,” abused, exploited, mortified, etc., by the sex alone. One can understand why they are far more likely than males to feel a sense of “guilt” and “shame” even if they weren’t raised to believe that sex outside of marriage is “sinful” and immoral.

But how many people would argue that both actors in such love affairs and romances and dalliances and “one-night stands,” males and females, are “traumatized” and “scarred for life,” invariably and irremediably, by the sex alone? And for males who have sex with females, any hurt or harm is a result of a love affair which ends in rejection and perhaps humiliation, not of the sex in-itself.

Who would argue that young men of 15 and 16 are “victims” for having sex with young women of 16 and 17, especially if they’re the aggressors and initiators and are much bigger and stronger and more sexually-experienced, much less “victims” of rape” and “child sexual abuse.” Who would argue that young men under age 16 or even 18 can’t assent to or initiate sex, willingly and knowingly, with adolescent girls under age 16 or 18.

Who would argue that 17-year old biological men, absurdly defined as “children” and even “little boys” and conflated with prepubescent girls, are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by consenting to or initiating sex with “adult” females of 18 or 19? “Traumatized” by the sex, not the relationship.

CSA victimologists believe that young men under age 16 or 18 are “victims” who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” because of an “imbalance of power” in adult-“child” relationships. The “victim” is damaged, profoundly and permanently, not by the sex alone, which by itself is the same as sex between underage adolescents, but by the sex in interaction with the relationship. But for the relationship and “imbalance of power” to be “traumatizing” the adult must be at least 4-5 years older than the “child.”

Underage teenagers are invariably and profoundly harmed for life not because they’re “children” per se but because they’re “children” who have sex with adults who are sufficiently (at least 4-5 years) or significantly older, and thus far more powerful in theory and by definition, irrespective of the facts and circumstances.

Consequently, the sex is invariably and inherently “nonconsensual,” “abusive,” “coercive,” exploitative, “traumatizing,” tantamount to “rape” and often defined as such or as “sexual assault,”even if the “victims” are much bigger and stronger and were the aggressors and initiators and even if they’re criminals and delinquents who’ve committed violent and other mala in se crimes and whom their de jure “victimizers” fear, justifiably, rationally, understandably.

In theory and by definition, a biological men under age 16 or 18 can’t consent to or initiate sex, willingly and knowingly, with an adult female who is at least 4-5 years older. And he can’t actually enjoy the sex even if he falsely believes that he does and is exultant rather than devastated, and is a “victim” of “rape” and “sexual assault” who is “traumatized” even if he’s totally unaware of his “victimization” and experiences his putative “traumatization” as exhilarating, gratifying, empowering.

And this “imbalance of power” and resultant “traumatization is exacerbated, the “scares” are wider and deeper and more crippling (emotionally) and disfiguring (metaphorically), if the adult woman is in a position of authority. He’s “traumatized” not only by an “imbalance of power” based on a disparity of age but also an “imbalance of power” based on the woman’s position of authority, irrespective of the facts and circumstances, even if he’s the aggressor and initiator and/or the woman doesn’t use her power and authority to coerce and manipulate him into engaging in “unwanted sex.”

But exactly how does the woman being an adult and at least 4-5 years older magically render the sex traumatizing? The magical age-disparity of 4-5 years is totally arbitrary, subjective, purely theoretical, empirically uncorroborated, and far less crucial than sundry other variables: intrinsic sexual differentiation, physically and psychologically, penetration, sex and strength, testosterone, aggressiveness, the propensity for violence and criminality, who fears whom, who was the aggressor and initiator and who was the passive and receptive actor. Precisely how does an affair that is deeply fulfilling and sex acts that are supremely pleasurable, as everyone would concede if the actors are two adults of 18 or 19, mysteriously and magically become “traumatizing” if the male is under 16 or even 18 and the female is at least 4-5 years older?

And how does the woman being in a position of authority magically render the sex even more traumatizing even if the “victim” was the aggressor and initiator and/or she didn’t misuse her authority to coerce and manipulate her “victim” into engaging in “unwanted sex”?

Advertisements