PDF file - Ipce

Part_5_2
Point (a) seems to me self-evident but point (b) needs explanation. Paul talks about "young
hustlers". Now the word "hustlers" is vague enough to conjure up a variety of possible
scenarios. I don't want to get personal or pin Paul down to anything specific. Paul, you may
wish to comment further in due course, but for the moment I'd like to use the word to make my
own point.
The Four Principles do not, to put it mildly, appear to have been framed with hustling in mind,
however that word might be defined. The ethical vision appears, rather, to be somewhat
blinkered, narrowly confined to settled friendships in which the adult assumes a quasi-parental
sense of responsibility. In my view many kinds of contact - short-term hustler or long-term
friend, or even long-term hustler or short-term friend - can be conducted ethically. However,
the so-called "rules" of ethical conduct will differ significantly according to the circumstances.
The degree of self-determination that it is appropriate for a child to have actually varies greatly,
both with the age, experience and maturity of the child and with the nature of the child's
relationship with the adult. Even in the case of an emotionally rather dependent youngster in a
long-term friendship, however, the desirable principle of self-determination remains, as Paul
pointed out, at odds with wording which appears to indicate a wish to wrap children in cotton
wool, to "protect" them in ways all too characteristic of those who oppose any sexual
expression for children.
Randy's argument about openness
The second excellent IMO posting was from Randy, commenting on Principle 4, on Openness.
He said: "It seems to me that if a child has consciously chosen a relationship with an adult then
they would know that revealing some of the details of that relationship may get one or both of
them in trouble. The mere fact that a child has chosen to ignore the indoctrination against these
relationships indicates that they would willingly keep it a secret if necessary. There is
obviously something about this adult that the child likes. They can derive strength and support
from the adult and his/her friends and not necessarily feel that they were carrying a terrible
burden."
Like Paul, Randy is here exposing an inconsistency: for an adult to decide on the child's behalf,
as a matter of principle, that the child should not engage in an activity that needs to be kept
secret is to impose a limit on that child's self-determination. Note that Randy, quite reasonably,
says youngsters would "not necessarily" feel they were carrying a terrible burden. He is here
acknowledging that in some circumstances secrets would not be a good idea. Once again, it all
depends on particular circumstances and judgments about them. This is half-heartedly
admitted even in the wording of Principle 4, which refers to "unreasonable" secrets, leaving
open the possibility that some such secrets might be acceptable, depending on the
circumstances. The PS, too , is a belated admission that particular circumstances are important.
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/newsletters/nl_e_12/part_5_2.htm (6 of 13) [10/16/2002 5:35:14 PM]