Ted Hoffman

AntiChris said : We have not "outlawed the consent of children".

The consent of a child is NOT admissible in a court of law. That is what I meant. For example one can say a woman agreed to have sex with him as a defense. But if its a child, that is not a defense.
<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91d.html" target="_blank">Check this site for child prostitution laws</a> which has this clause:

Antichris posted: On this false basis you appear to be suggesting that it is rational that children should not be allowed to decide whether or not they want to participate in a sexual relationship with an adult.

The basis is not false, so perhaps you would like to review your assertions now?

Why should children be raped but not adults?

No child should be raped and no adult should be raped. Calm down. Why this tendentious and polemical attitude?

If one is to have sex with a child, It has been agreed (both here and legally) that the consent of the child cannot not be used as a defense by anyone caught in a sexual offence involvimg a child. Because one can get the child to consent: (1) via dubious means [kids are gullible buy her a sweet and she will agree] (2) via undue influence [they are trusting and obedient] (3) under duress (4) a child does not fully grasp the consequences of the act to be qualified to consent or refuse. And many more reasons others can come up with.

Its because of some of the above reasons that the consent of a child is not considered legal. Thus the consent of children is outlawed. You still object to this?

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

The AntiChris

Intensity

I didn't intend to suggest that you were actually advocating child rape, merely pointing out where your line of reasoning appeared to be heading.

Let's start again.

brighid said:

You responded:

I realise now that you weren't actually addressing the point that brighid made.

Irrespective of what the law says, unless you can provide a convincing argument to show that children really do have the "cognitive ability to understand what they are 'participating' in" it must be assumed that they are unable to provide meaningful consent. Adults deliberating over what is "wrong or right" has no bearing on the matter unless it can be shown that children really can provide informed consent.

Chris

Ted Hoffman

AntiChris said: I realise now that you weren't actually addressing the point that brighid made.

I was precisely addressing the point she made which I have highlighted below:

brighid said: She was saying:
1. Children have no actual cognitive ability to understand what they are "participating" in,
2. Children do not have the ability to accept both the benefits AND consequences of said action and therefore are NOT FREE agents.
3. Therefore it is wrong to involve them in such acts.

Though the conclusion is a non-sequitur, I wanted to refute the argument on its invalidity as a whole. Because it appeals to the inability of children to (a) appreciate the consequences of the action (b) be able to be "free agents".

Her argument is comparable to saying its wrong to offer euthanasia on comatose victims because they cannot refuse or accept the euthanasia.

Its an invalid argument because we are precisely debating the matter here because children have no capacity to competently decide on a matter of this magnitude.
The very fact that we are having this discussion as adults precludes the ability of children to consent to the acts in question or participate on a discussion of this nature. So claiming the children have no capacity to understand the benefits AND consequences of the action is an invalid objection.
Its an argument that defeats its own purpose.
Are we clear on this?

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

The AntiChris

Are you arguing that although children do not have the "capacity" to "decide on a matter of this magnitude", they do have the capacity to provide informed consent (to sex with an adult)?

Unless you can establish that children are capable of giving informed consent I don't see how adult sex with children can be defended.

Sex with someone who does not or cannot provide informed consent is rape.

Chris

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: The AntiChris ]</p>

Amen-Moses

So why limit it by age? i.e why don't we have a test to see if someone of any age can provide "informed consent" prior to engaging in any act?

Amen-Moses

The AntiChris

Do you think that age has no bearing on an individual's ability to give informed consent to sex with an adult? The fact that most people do seem to think this is an issue doesn't make it right, but I haven't seen a compelling argument yet to suggest that age is irrelevant.

Chris

Ted Hoffman

AntiChris :Are you arguing that although children do not have the "capacity" to "decide on a matter of this magnitude", they do have the capacity to provide informed consent (to sex with an adult)?

Intensity: No. Please! I am saying whether they can or should consent is irrelevant because if they could, My question would have been "why do children refuse to be used sexually?" instead of "why is it wrong to use children sexually?"

We are having this discussion because we, as adults have decided (with or without a rational basis) that it is wrong to use children sexually that is why my question is directed as adults. Because children are not qualified to answer the question.

To object citing the lack of capability of children to consent is to undermine the very foundation of this discussion and is also a cop-out that can only lead to inaction and indecision.

Antichris Do you think that age has no bearing on an individual's ability to give informed consent to sex with an adult? The fact that most people do seem to think this is an issue doesn't make it right, but I haven't seen a compelling argument yet to suggest that age is irrelevant.

Intensity : Age has a bearing. But age it is misleading to base ones decision-making skills solely on age because chronological age is not always at par with ones intellectual (or is it mental?) "age".

I think the age thing gains a lot of support because it saves many the burden of parenting especially as regards sexual matters which most parents find very embarrasing to discuss. So since the law protects their children, most parents lean heavily on the law (to protect the kids they have failed to inform and educate on sexual matters) and later when the kids are grown up, the kids discover the hard way about sex and its consequences.

But I dont feel strongly about this age-limit issue since I don't question the legal imposition of the age limit (which people violate at will anyway). I am more interested in what is in people's minds and hearts on this issue.

Ted Hoffman

Antichris: Unless you can establish that children are capable of giving informed consent I don't see how adult sex with children can be defended.

Children do not give informed consent to get circumsised or to join doomsday cults. They dont need to because they are obedient and trusting.
In the same way, they dont need to give informed consent to have sex. Because of this, consent of children in sexual matters has been outlawed (to protect the children and deter the adults).

Even things adults do to each other require consent - for example, its wrong to force an adult to get circumcised, or to forcefully perform a surgical operation on an adult etc. So to do something against ones will is wrong generally, NOT ONLY in sexual matters and NOT ONLY where children are involved. But even among adults there are cases where we have to decide whats best for other adults for example when they are insane or comatose. It would be invalid to object to someone washing a comatose person with the words "How can you wash her and yet she is not able to provide consent!, it is wrong to do that"

With kids, we as adults decide what is best for them and they trust us to do what is best for them. Therefore, the kids wouldn't object to having sex if the adults got them to engage in such acts precisely because they are children, who by definition "exhibit the characteristics of very young people, as innocence, obedience, trustfulness, limited understanding, etc". Even if they refused, that may not be a huge barrier to the adult having his way. Kids refuse to go to school and adults have to coerce them or persuade them to do so. Their refusal is NOT used as theguide to whether something is right or wrong. Its the adult who decides and prevails upon the child.

We therefore must take full responsibility to what we do with children and to claim they cannot give consent conversely means they(under certain circumstances) can give valid consent, but that is NOT the case. Because if that were the case, some padeophiles can trick the kids into consenting then use that consent as a defense in a court of law.
Based in this, the inability of children to give consent is a non-issue. Because if consent were an issue, we would ask the children to consent.

Antichris: Sex with someone who does not or cannot provide informed consent is rape

Getting carried away are we? You have a peculiar understanding of the word rape.
Let me help you with dictionary.com:

RAPE:
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.

For example for a (sick) doctor to have sex with a comatose patient is not rape, its simply abuse of such people (or some other ethical jargon - violation of trust, unlawful bodily invasion or some other high-sounding medico-legal terms).

Rape has to involve an element of force, where the rapist has to employ some force or violence to subdue the victim.

You dont need to over-exaggerate to make your case.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

HelenM

Ok, I agree...it was too ad hominem - I'm sorry.

If I may try again - what you wrote misrepresented Western Counseling quite egregiously. (And I'd rather not think you deliberately did so so I assumed you simply didn't know much about it - but I could have avoided commenting on your knowledge - again I apologize...)

What do you want me to say apart from "that's not at all representative of Western Counseling"? Do I need stats to show how few counselors rely heavily on Freud's theories, these days? Do I need quotes from respected people to show that virtually everyone except a few quacks recognize the dangers of 'recovered memory' techniques?

No . Point taken.

BUT, to non-believers, morality is by consensus is it not?

So, what else do you have but 'the majority thinks...'

Tell me if there is some 'objective standard of rightness' out there that nonbelievers believe in - as it were. I didn't think there was which means we only have the collective wisdom of the group. We are right to be wary of minority opinions even though numbers don't make something right, per se.

I'm not making you look like a misfit. I'm simply noticing that most people here aren't agreeing with what you say.

Admittedly I took a risk on what she's thinking. If I was wrong I will apologize.

I know. I was saying that she meant 'exploit' when she said 'use'.

Thanks for your comments, Intensity.

take care
Helen

Ted Hoffman

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>