zepoodle wrote:
I don't really think there's any consent involved in self-pleasure. The only reason to restrict self-anything is if it causes harm, which ********************* doesn't do. At all.
Well, someone who wanted to pick nits could get into public ************************** and the notion that ************ in front of an unwilling witness is a violation of their right to consent, but yeah.
I think the question in the OP, though, is about the idea of "covert incest," (I think that's the term they used in SVU) which is the existence of a sexual "vibe" (for lack of a better word) between an adult and a child. IIRC, the example in SVU dealt with a father who never touched his daughter, but was always looking at her breasts, commenting on how she was developing and becoming a woman in such a way that indicated he was viewing her as a sex object--in other words, not in an innocent "aww, gee, you're really growing up" kind of way, but rather in a creepy, "my my look how you're 'growing'" (as his eyes are fixed on her breasts) way. The sort of behavior that could get you slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit in the workplace. Sometimes it might go as far as "grooming" behaviors where the adult starts to influence the child's sexual behavior, sort of trying to mold them into the adults fantasy partner while still not ever touching them.
Anyway, the question--if I'm understanding it properly--is whether or not encouraging a child to ********** and providing them with aids to self-pleasure--could be considered covert incest, and whether or not you could get into legal trouble for it.
First of all, I'm not sure there's really a lot of legal ramification to covert incest to begin with. It mainly exists as a silent vibe between the adult and child that, while it leaves the child feeling sexually violated in an intangible way, could probably be excused by anyone who inquired as a harmless comment misinterpreted by an imaginative child. I'd be interested to know if there have ever been any charges brought against an adult--or whether a parent has ever lost custody--based on claims of covert incest. I doubt there have been many--if any--cases where such a claim has actually stuck, because it's an awfully gray area.
I suppose if there WERE legal grounds to prosecute and/or take custody from a parent for covert incest, then yes, instructing your child about ************ and/or providing them with implements could qualify in the same way that taking pictures of your child playing in the bath could be prosecuted as child pron. Perhaps some sort of "corruption of a minor" charge might stick, but I'm just not sure that realistically it would happen.
Edited, Jun 16th 2009 10:10am by Ambrya