Is a relationship with a mentally challenged person "child sex abuse"?

[Jada59]

You used the word, "boy". That may be the problem. 19 is not a boy, although if he is mentally challenged, he may seem like a boy.

I personally know several mentally challenged people from my school days who went on to get married, have children, grandchildren and wonderful lives.

Every person is different. As long as you don't take advantage of the other person, it's fine.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Is that the thing these days, making up ridiculous statements about what other posters think, and then attacking them on those wrong ideas? And bringing up walls of text that don't seem relevant at all, in the hope of ... what?

I'm sensing a very strong vibe of 'If you're not thinking exactly the way we do, we are against you, and we will overflow you with whatever we can come up with'. For me, it's poisoning the atmosphere here, and it only seems to widen the gap between whatever opinions are on the table. It doesn't invite for open discussion.

I assume that despite the passive tone you've used, that you mean to say I made up ridiculous statements about what other posters thought, that I attacked them on "wrong" ideas, and that I brought up walls of text that don't seem relevant at all. If I've misunderstood, please correct me.

I can't address the first because I simply don't know what you're talking about. I have not attacked any person for their ideas on the subject. I've argued about an idea, and I've objected to personal attacks against me. Nowhere, in anything I wrote, will you find me making any sort of personal attack.

As far as walls of text, this is a forum for writers. I assume a certain amount of tolerance for reading, but if it's ineffective or objectionable to you, skip it.

The rest of your comment is a characterization. If that's how you feel, that's how you feel. I'm sorry that a robust discussion of and disagreement over issues poisons things for you. But, this forum isn't just for you, and I do think it's possible to make room for conflict of ideas here.

Different writers on this site write erotica very differently. Some writers stay purely within the realm of sex and what happens directly around sex within a relationship uncomplicated by social questions. Other writers explore social issues in their stories. Both are valid and there is a demand for both.

This is an important issue both in terms of how we treat people with mental disabilities and in terms of how we portray them in writing. If we can't discuss important issues like that, how do we ever expose ourselves to new ideas.

The discussion is not pointless. Over the course of the discussion, people's ideas and positions have evolved. The overall tone of the comments has gone from treating mentally challenged people as a group to a recognition that they cannot all be treated as a bloc, and that issues of agency and consent only apply at all to a subset of people within that group. Earlier comments included blanket statements in both directions, as well as some very inflammatory comments about "terrible" ideas and personalizations.

You see a widening gap, but I see a refinement of the issues so that we better understand them. It's not necessary to come to agreement on the ultimate issue to have a productive discussion. It's important to understand each other's point of view.

This is a sensitive subject, but the title of the thread is enough to warn you of that. It equates a relationship with someone with mental disabilities to child sex abuse. Considering the explosive nature of the title, what lies within is pretty tame. If you don't want to read about sensitive subjects that you know generate strong feelings, it's very easy to avoid. Suggesting that other people shouldn't have those conversations because they make you uncomfortable is an extreme solution.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Sex with a woman who is drunk is not illegal. I don't think any state in the United States says that. If that were true, a huge percent of the sex that happens in this country would be illegal.

It is not true that being somewhat drunk renders one unable to give consent.

It is true that if someone is SO drunk that they do not know what they are doing, and someone takes advantage of that fact and has sex with them, an illegal act may have happened because of the lack of consent.

It's not either/or, just as with people with mental disabilities it's not either/or. It's on a sliding scale. One can have some degree of disability and still be able to consent to sex. This is the reality, just as it is reality that people get buzzed from drinking and have sex and it's not illegal.

We should be careful about making sweeping statements about categories of people and human behavior and forming sweeping rules, because those sweeping rules often are based on erroneous assumptions about people.

Every state in the USA will prosecute for rape, if the woman press charges. A drunk person doesn't have the capacity to consent. The courts will go along with the legal limit for which you are allowed to drive, which in most states is 0.08 %.

As for the Mentally disabled... yes, it might be there are some that would in the eyes of the law they would be able to consent. But, if the individual has the mental capacity of a child... eg. under 18, they do not have the ability to consent.

I mentioned my granddaughter earlier, she is about 12 in her mind. She doesn't have the legal capacity to consent.

The law is pretty clear on taking advantage of those who are incapacitated either by biology or some form of mind altering chemical, which alcohol is.

I researched most of these thing, even in Texas, they don't let men rape women who are drunk or too high to think straight. Besides, personally, I like my women to be cognizant during the good times. I am not a rapist.

As for sweeping statements... The law is, if anything, generally sweeping when it comes to protecting a persons rights or protecting those that can't protect themselves.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

If you couldn't relate this to the text I'd quoted, it confirms to me that there's no normal arguing with you. Apparently, everything needs to be spelled out, and even then you'll only take what you can use.

The discussion itself is not pointless, but it seems like having a discussion with you, is.

That's a very personal attack. I'm sorry you're angry, but I'm not going to apologize for discussing a topic. If there's something less amorphous I've done that you find offensive, I'd be happy to consider it. You've talked about the way it makes you feel. I've recognized that, and I'm not insensitive to your feelings. If I tell you that I can't address something because I don't know what you're talking about, you have the option of telling what that thing is. I do not see anything where I've made a statement about someone else's feelings on the subject. I've made a deliberate effort to avoid doing that, even when other people were using inflammatory language. You disagree, but unless you tell me what you're talking about, I have no way of understanding your point. Since you posted your comment, you were obviously trying to make a point.

If you don't want to explain what bothers you, there's nothing I can do about that. If you think it is pointless to have a discussion with me, don't. That's a functional solution. Posting your opinion that it's pointless to have a discussion with me seems geared toward making me feel bad or expressing anger.

 

[lovecraft68]

Keyword search on "Boy"

https://search.literotica.com/?query=boy

Looks like a lot fell through the cracks.

It would be nice if an answer was given that wasn't a cop out but addressed the real topic. In this case what would be the sites stance on a story such as the one being discussed which would put an end to this discussion and cut off ensuing ones.

 

[jsmiam]

Recently one one of those entertaining advice columns that occasionally bubbles up on the news app on my device, was a couple who were engaged in a lengthy debate about peeing in the shower when you’re staying at someone else’s home. The initiator of the situation to begin with was the shower peeer, vigorously saying it’s all ok because no harm done.

I was amazed that a person would openly start a conversation about it in the first place, defending shower peeing. In someone else’s shower.

This seems like a parallel. Even though it’s probably legal, or perhaps better to say probably not illegal, and even though in this case it probably made an legally of-age male with Down’s syndrome very very happy, why would you drag this up in public?

So I will set aside the right or wrong of the subject matter, and dwell on the narcissism and self righteousness of the shower peeer and the op. A reminder To them: Sometimes, believe it or not, silence beats talking

 

[MelissaBaby]

Recently one one of those entertaining advice columns that occasionally bubbles up on the news app on my device, was a couple who were engaged in a lengthy debate about peeing in the shower when you’re staying at someone else’s home. The initiator of the situation to begin with was the shower peeer, vigorously saying it’s all ok because no harm done.

I was amazed that a person would openly start a conversation about it in the first place, defending shower peeing. In someone else’s shower.

This seems like a parallel. Even though it’s probably legal, or perhaps better to say probably not illegal, and even though in this case it probably made an legally of-age male with Down’s syndrome very very happy, why would you drag this up in public?

So I will set aside the right or wrong of the subject matter, and dwell on the narcissism and self righteousness of the shower peeer and the op. A reminder To them: Sometimes, believe it or not, silence beats talking

Are you saying that people should not write about transgressive subjects?

 

[jsmiam]

Are you saying that people should not write about transgressive subjects?

Not exactly what I meant, no.

To me a discussion is, here’s a topic, discuss.

This, like shower peeing man felt more like, “I did something many people would find at least a bit unusual or distasteful, I’m right, everyone agree with me, ‘cuz I’m so great. “ That was how I interpreted what was said.

 

[SimonDoom]

So I will set aside the right or wrong of the subject matter, and dwell on the narcissism and self righteousness of the shower peeer and the op. A reminder To them: Sometimes, believe it or not, silence beats talking

I don't think you know enough about the OP or the relationship to judge the OP in this way.

I also think it's inappropriate to tell someone they should be silent. Disagree with their position, if you wish. Don't tell them they shouldn't express it, especially in a forum like this one where people are constantly pushing story ideas that stretch all boundaries of believability, legality, and morality.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Not exactly what I meant, no.

To me a discussion is, here’s a topic, discuss.

This, like shower peeing man felt more like, “I did something many people would find at least a bit unusual or distasteful, I’m right, everyone agree with me, ‘cuz I’m so great. “ That was how I interpreted what was said.

Shower guy was discussing it in the context of an advice column, so your point is well taken. He wanted feedback, and it's safe to assume he was eager to defend his position.

Writing about an uncomfortable or taboo subject in the context of fiction is a whole different thing, in my opinion. Exploring the boundaries of human behavior is an important function of art. So, while I agree with you regarding Shower Pee guy, I disagree with the comparison to the topic under discussion.

 

[jsmiam]

I don't think you know enough about the OP or the relationship to judge the OP in this way.

I also think it's inappropriate to tell someone they should be silent. Disagree with their position, if you wish. Don't tell them they shouldn't express it, especially in a forum like this one where people are constantly pushing story ideas that stretch all boundaries of believability, legality, and morality.

Perhaps. Although I was trying to say it with nuance. I wasn’t exactly meaning don’t talk. I was meaning don’t talk too much.

Nonetheless, perhaps I was talking too much too. I started then stopped replying to this thread a couple times. Shoulda listened to Thumper’s mom more.

 

[HMILF]

I finally managed to publish my story: Helping Johnny

I made the modifications which Laurel suggested and it got approved. Those modifications even made it better. I Thank Laurel and all those who supported me.

This is also my first story.

 

[SimonDoom]

I finally managed to publish my story: Helping Johnny

I made the modifications which Laurel suggested and it got approved. Those modifications even made it better. I Thank Laurel and all those who supported me.

This is also my first story.

Congratulations on publishing your first story!

I read it and had a few thoughts, apropos of the discussion that's been ongoing in this thread.

You narrate a story of kindness toward Johnny. Assuming the narration is true, Johnny is not used or exploited. He benefits from the erotic encounter and probably is better for it. He is treated as a human being and not fetishized or degraded. He is not treated as "underage" or as a child in any meaningful sense. You, as the main character/narrator, don't see him that way, and I don't think a reader of the story would see him that way.

I don't see how the story, on its face, could be seen as supporting exploitation, or as being fodder for someone who seeks to exploit mentally disabled people. It's hard for me to imagine how anyone, anywhere, could read this story and be more inclined, out there in the real world, to hurt mentally disabled people.

Your story also does not exploit or peddle false stereotypes of disabled people. Although you describe him as having Down Syndrome, you don't describe any details that perpetuate cruel stereotypes.

So, as I see it, your story disproves the concern that a story about this subject is fatally flawed and inappropriate, either for perpetuating cruel stereotypes or for feeding a desire to exploit someone, or making exploitation more likely in the real world.

Your story DOES raise a question, and that is whether your perception of the encounter is accurate. It's told in a very summary memoir fashion. There's no dialogue, and there's no detailed description of specific encounters. In this story we don't get to know details either about you as the character/narrator or about Johnny. You "tell" rather than "show," and so we are left to rely upon the accuracy of your "telling." Someone who is skeptical about the propriety of these relationships might question whether your narrative is accurate, or whether you are seeing it through rose-colored glasses. They might remain skeptical about whether these relationships are ever appropriate. That's not my reaction, but I think it's a fair reaction to the story, and it's perfectly fair for people to raise questions about the reliability of the narrator (that's not a unique issue with your story -- it's true of every story).

Regardless, my reaction is that, whatever one thinks about the propriety of these relationships, your story proves that fiction is one, legitimate way to have a dialogue about this issue, and that we shouldn't feel too squeamish about giving fiction writers a platform to write stories about a subject that understandably makes many people uncomfortable.

 

[SisterJezabel]

Congratulations on publishing your first story!

Regardless, my reaction is that, whatever one thinks about the propriety of these relationships, your story proves that fiction is one, legitimate way to have a dialogue about this issue, and that we shouldn't feel too squeamish about giving fiction writers a platform to write stories about a subject that understandably makes many people uncomfortable.

Yeah, I came away with that idea too. I think it might have also benefited from a little editing- just some tweaking here or there.

 

[HMILF]

I would have agreed with you, if the story had given a good representation of someone with the Dawn syndrome, but nowhere in this story do I get the feeling the writer actually knows what she's writing about. This is not a story featuring someone with the Dawn syndrome, this is a story where one character gets labeled with the Down syndrome, and that's it.

I'm not an expert in this field, and even if I was, writing scientific stuff about Down syndrome in a sex story wasn't appropriate. It would have made the story long and boring. I could have only approached this question with emotions; that's what an average reader of such stories can connect to. If someone is looking for a scientific article about learning disabilities, there is no point in searching for it in Literotica! I didn't just labeled Johnny with Down syndrome, I wrote about the problems which he was facing because of it.

But. The fact that this story was written without exploitation and any other nasty things, doesn't mean it is a good basis to discuss having sex with people with the Down syndrome, as the story doesn't paint a fair picture of people with the Down syndrome, and doesn't get into what the Down syndrome is really about.

I think you are expecting what can't be expected from any story in general. No story can provide a good basis for discussion of a serious question which needs scientific research. The stories are about morality. The moral of this story is asking people not to belittle those who are suffering from learning disabilities, to consider them humans with rights and to allow them to develop their abilities, and by doing so, become better persons themselves.

I found it rather shocking that she decided she was in the position to make the final statement at the end of the story, in which she suggests that everyone, with or without proper knowledge, should feel free to point out to caretakers how they neglect the people they care about; (something what was also described to happen in this story):

You are misinterpreting my last paragraph. Therefore, I quote it here in full:

"However, if you want to help someone with a similar problem, be sure that you are not mistaking your desires for someone else's needs. Don't rush into anything. Try to inform their parents or caretakers about the needs which they neglect. Be sure that they are mature, intelligent and responsible enough to have sex. Always put them first and never ever take advantage of them."

It' obvious that I didn't suggest everyone "with or without proper knowledge" to "point out to caretakers how they neglect". how can they point out something which they don't know it's being neglected or not in the first place?! I was talking about helping someone "with a similar problem" which Johnny had. I believe that paragraph is clear enough and there is no need for further explanation.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I do not share Simon's opinion that this story is a good base for a dialogue about having sex with people with Down syndrome, or even about having sex with a broader range of mentally challenged people. That's no criticism to your story, assuming that this was not your intention.

Hmm. Just a description of it led to a four page discussion.

 

[SimonDoom]

I do not share Simon's opinion that this story is a good base for a dialogue about having sex with people with Down syndrome, or even about having sex with a broader range of mentally challenged people. That's no criticism to your story, assuming that this was not your intention.

Just to be clear, and a little picky, that's not exactly what I wrote.

What I wrote was that "fiction is one, legitimate way to have a dialogue about this issue." This story takes one approach, and other people might disagree with that approach, or be stimulated by it to take different approaches.

This story basically treats Johnny as being like everyone else, even though it says he has Down Syndrome. My understanding is that, in fact, there ARE people with Down Syndrome who have healthy sex lives, just like those without mental disabilities, and one can find some nonfictional discussion of this subject online, such as at the website for the National Down Syndrome Society. So it seemed to me that this story, whether it was strictly accurate in this case, could be an accurate account about a relationship with someone with Down Syndrome, even if, I think it's fair to say, it left a lot of details out.

You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. As for whether you have anything "nice to say" I don't think that's as important. I think the chief limitation on anyone participating in a post like this ought to be not to jump to any negative conclusions about the author's motives or personal qualities.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

Sex with a woman who is drunk is not illegal. I don't think any state in the United States says that. If that were true, a huge percent of the sex that happens in this country would be illegal.

It is not true that being somewhat drunk renders one unable to give consent.

It is true that if someone is SO drunk that they do not know what they are doing, and someone takes advantage of that fact and has sex with them, an illegal act may have happened because of the lack of consent.

It's not either/or, just as with people with mental disabilities it's not either/or. It's on a sliding scale. One can have some degree of disability and still be able to consent to sex. This is the reality, just as it is reality that people get buzzed from drinking and have sex and it's not illegal.

We should be careful about making sweeping statements about categories of people and human behavior and forming sweeping rules, because those sweeping rules often are based on erroneous assumptions about people.

Technically it is, it's statutory rape. Somebody not of sound mind cannot give consent. That's why that one basketball player got in trouble a few years ago, up in Minnesota or where ever it was. People fuck drunk, yes, but by law it's illegal. Same if two 14 year olds fucked anywhere in the USA and some countries; they are below the age of consent and can't legally give each other consent, even if they were aware of all the ramifications. They still do it, though. If I recall, actually; there have been two cases here in Ky about somebody getting in trouble for fucking a retard or senile person, one I think involved a cna in some kinda home living place, which adds another level of not only could they not give consent, but the other person was in a position of powed over them, which even a person of sound mind can't legally give consent to. That's why it's a big deal when a teacher fucks or dates a student whether it be high school or college.

As far as me, when it comes to a number of things; illegal is just a sick bird, anyway. So yeah I'll fuck a drunk person, or a retard as long as they're legal.

 

[SimonDoom]

Technically it is, it's statutory rape. Somebody not of sound mind cannot give consent. That's why that one basketball player got in trouble a few years ago, up in Minnesota or where ever it was. People fuck drunk, yes, but by law it's illegal. Same if two 14 year olds fucked anywhere in the USA and some countries; they are below the age of consent and can't legally give each other consent, even if they were aware of all the ramifications. They still do it, though. If I recall, actually; there have been two cases here in Ky about somebody getting in trouble for fucking a retard or senile person, one I think involved a cna in some kinda home living place, which adds another level of not only could they not give consent, but the other person was in a position of powed over them, which even a person of sound mind can't legally give consent to. That's why it's a big deal when a teacher fucks or dates a student whether it be high school or college.

As far as me, when it comes to a number of things; illegal is just a sick bird, anyway. So yeah I'll fuck a drunk person, or a retard as long as they're legal.

What you are saying is false as a matter of law. It's not correct. Cite a law or a specific example that supports what you are saying.

Statutory rape is the crime of having sex with a person under the age of consent. Period. In most states in the US that means under 18. It has nothing to do with drunkeness. I defy you to give an example of a statute anywhere in the United States that defines statutory rape as having sex with someone who is drunk. I don't think such a statute exists.

Folks, it is NOT illegal to have sex with a drunk person, if by "drunk" one simply means "under the influence of alcohol." That is not the law. If you cannot cite to a specific example where someone was convicted for that, then don't say it. It's not the law. People have sex all the time while being under the influence, and it is NOT illegal. Half of college sex would be rape if this were true. Let's be realistic and stay in the real world.

If a person is so inebriated that they do not know what they are doing, and you take advantage of that, and have sex with that person knowing that the person is in no position to give meaningful consent, that's different. That could be illegal. But that is NOT the same as having sex while drunk. That's not illegal.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

I remember reading an article last year of a dude with downs who hired a prostitute to havs sex with him. It was a rather long search to find a woman willing to do it. The woman in question was a bit unsure, but took his offer, and she was rather glad he did, not so much for the money, but how much he appreciated her treating him like a normal person. He was a regular customer of hers.

I'll read that story in a lil while. I have an idea for a story bit not a plot, and thought about going this route, but wasn't sure. I might write a story like this and throw in some incest just to make it over the top.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Just to be clear, and a little picky, that's not exactly what I wrote.

What I wrote was that "fiction is one, legitimate way to have a dialogue about this issue." This story takes one approach, and other people might disagree with that approach, or be stimulated by it to take different approaches.

For an example of a very different approach, AwkwardMD's "Lafayette Hills" is about a young autistic woman who falls in with an older and more experienced woman.

In a lot of ways it's the opposite of OP's story: a long story, told from the perspective of the younger woman, and describing what definitely is an exploitative relationship touching on some of the issues I mentioned earlier about autism and consent. It's not necessarily a fun read but I'd hold it up as an example of how stories here can explore those complexities.

 

[SimonDoom]

For an example of a very different approach, AwkwardMD's "Lafayette Hills" is about a young autistic woman who falls in with an older and more experienced woman.

In a lot of ways it's the opposite of OP's story: a long story, told from the perspective of the younger woman, and describing what definitely is an exploitative relationship touching on some of the issues I mentioned earlier about autism and consent. It's not necessarily a fun read but I'd hold it up as an example of how stories here can explore those complexities.

I will check that out.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I will check that out.

It is worth it.

As Bramblethorn notes, it's not easy, it has an edge; but then, AwkwardMD doesn't set out to be an "easy" read. She challenges herself as much as she does her readers, I think.

 

[waratah]

Probably no one correct answer.

Depend on the degree of mentally challenge, the motives for the relationship.

Generally agree that a MC person is entitled to same experiences as non MC. With a couple of protections from being taken advantage of.

For due diligence i would apply a pub sniff test


Would i be happy if my mother, and his/her mother or sister or 2 aunties or uncles knew we were having this relationship? How would it look if it got in the paper.

 

[Bramblethorn]

For due diligence i would apply a pub sniff test


Would i be happy if my mother, and his/her mother or sister or 2 aunties or uncles knew we were having this relationship? How would it look if it got in the paper.

This is a very unreliable test. Plenty of parents have bad ideas about what kinds of relationship are acceptable, and newspapers can be outright hateful towards relationships outside the norm, regardless of whether they're actually exploitative.