Ted Hoffman

99Percent,
Read my post to Linda above and respond. To it.

infidelchic

Some of the posts here contain all the classic earmarks of pedophilia including, but not limited to, justification, rationalization and minimization.

The AntiChris

Intensity

I think you're playing games here. Let me remind you of what you wrote:

Chris

JerryM

Jerry M

violating another person also violates you

This is what the discussion is all about - why is it violation on kids but not on adults?


Answer:
I never limited this just to children. Violating anyone's autonomy, without a clearly justifiable exception is wrong, and I stated as much in an earlier post.
____________________
I asked a question about one who has a wife who is demented after an accident - is it okay to have sex with such a person? Or will you keep running away from this question?


Answer:
If she does not consent, or cannot consent then absolutely this is wrong.
_____________________
In the specific case of molesting children, what is unethical is also illegal, and you risk the wrath of law enforcement.

Wrath of law enforcement is a very weak argument sir. If law enforcers made worship illegal, would that make it unethical?


Answer:
You misunderstood my point. I was not saying that this is what makes child molestation unethical. I was pointing out that these are additional risks of committing an unethical act. Things that may happen to the perpetrator.

____________________
Stop short-circuiting the discussion please. We are trying to find a basis for labelling sex with children unethical.

And victims of abuse (of any kind) have also been known to visit their own vengeance upon their abusers.

This does not make it unethical. Even kids who are punished in school for their mistakes have been known to shoot their teachers.

Answer:
Again, my point is that what makes such acts unethical is that it is an unjustifiable violation of a person's autonomy (it also may be directly physically or emotionally damaging.) What you are quoting are risks one assumes by committing these acts.
____________________
This vengeance could also be a case of misplaced aggression based on the "victim" status society attributed to those who were "abused" sexually.

Answer:
Interesting theory. Do you have any data to support it?

____________________
But the larger issue is how we convince anyone to follow any ethical rules

Larger, perhaps, but not relevant. We are interested in finding a rational basis for declaring sexual use of children to be wrong.

Briefly, re. a "happy society." I use this as an umbrella phrase for a well-functioning society.

With all due respect, each of us have our own utopia. A fundamentalist muslim will also have their own utopia (I am not sure you would like it very much). So, spare us your personal appeals for your vision of what constitutes a "happy society". Because therein lies a can of worms.
Even padeophiles have their own utopia you know


Answer:
Do you disagree that the items I listed are desirable in society? I'll ask again, what kind of society do you want?

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: JerryM ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

AntiChris - what game?
What I said was that it is said (by many) that involving children in sexual activities is wrong.

And that this thread is dedicated to finding out whether there is any rational basis for this opinion.

Whether you find it is a game or not is not important. We want a rational justification of that negative opinion on sexual use of children.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Jane Bovary:
But we are not Bonobo's. The reason we don't walk around buck naked copulating at will is not necessarily because we are uptight moralists, but because we have developed a more complicated version of our sexuality. There is more art to human sexuality than mere gratification on demand. We have developed and fine-tuned concepts like sexual tension, forbidden fruit, innocence, anticipation, romanticism, virginity...all this can elevate our sexuality to a poetic dimension the Bonobo's could never experience.

How do you know that Bonobo's do not experience similar "fine-tuned concepts" that we are missing out on? Bonobo sexuality is a hellishly complicated system compared to ours.

When we are young children we have sexual feelings but donot yet have the sophistication or necessary maturity to fully realise this art of sexuality. We're still learning about it...we play at sex, but we don't take it seriously, with an adult passion. By the time we reach adolescence our bodies are developing, as are our ideas. We are in possession of a newfound sexual psychology. We are filled with a sense of excitement and anticipation and an awareness that we are on the precipice of sexual realisation. Much of this acute excitement, we feel for the very reason that sex IS still a mystery and because we better understand subtle adult sexual concepts which accompany the act.

Well I realise that you are maybe speaking from a completely different perspective than me (I am a man after all ) but personally I don't see sex as a mystery at all! Women are a complete mystery though (again from a male pov).

If children have already been sexually exploited/experienced...whatever you want to call it, then we have taken some of this pleasure away from them...we have made the Sexual Adventure more Bonobo than human.

Personally I prefer the Bonobo way of dealing with stress than the Human one, i.e rubbing genitals is a hell of a lot less painful than a punch on the nose (or a bomb on your house).

Amen-Moses

Xixax

My problem with it is children ( again that definition means different things to different people, but by this I mean a young person not yet mature enough to reason on the same level as an adolescent or young adult ) do not have the capacity to understand what it is they are consenting to.

My mother was married at 14 to my father. In her case, she wasn't a 'child' at that age. Some I run into now that age are children, others are not.

How would one go about determining 'objectively' whether or not they other is a child? I honestly can't say for sure. Perhaps clues picked up in conversation: Do they understand the 'value' of certain possessions? I.E., if you bought them a $50,000 antique, would they care for it or trade it in for a 'toy' at a neighbors house? Some of these are unfortunately applicable to adults as well, but I think we all understand the difference between a child, an adolescent, a young adult and an adult. It may not be something we can easily place into words, but we understand the difference.

A child does not have the cognitive facilities necessary to understand what it is they are consenting to. They are more influenced by the adults permissiveness than they are their own reasoning. I think the attraction to children over adolscents and beyond is the ease in which they can be used for this purpose. They do not require any sexual attraction to the adult, as they are mostly acting on command ( their sexual instincts are not defined at -all- ).

I find it repulsive.

Also, it has been asked, can you have sex with your wife if she were somehow in an accident where her ability to reason for herself was damaged? My -generalized- answer would be no. She cannot provide consent, and sex without consent is wrong regardless of the relationship with the other party.

I know we are an ape, an intelligent bipedal mammal. However, our complex language and intelligence have given us qualities that other animals do not possess in the same degree as we have them, and the only inescapable prison is our minds. To place unwanted sexual memories in the memories of another person is wrong. They cause tremendous feelings of personal violation, and because it's in their memories, they can never escape it.

Not to mention, what point is there to sexual behavior with a child?? There are plenty of consenting adults out there. Is it because the consenting adults may be obese or 'ugly', or in some way not fitting the ideals of the adults sexual desire? Do they then go for children who's small frame and features, and the ease at which they can be convinced? It seems harmful and selfish. If they child wishes to consent, let the child wait until it's reached adolescence/young adult hood. If it still desires that kind of contact with the adult, good for them. Before that time, since the mind is uknowable from the outside, the adult should behave as an adult and control their urges.

Xixax

I read a few other posts mentioning things like pictures of children taken innocently, and then used in a negative way by a pervert. I think it would cause some emotional ( much more temporary ) harm to them when they found out, but it's definitely not an exploitation of the child. The adult who did that activity, and for admiring parents who are just making a pictorial record of their childs life it is innocent, had no exploitative intentions behind it.

I think if the adult takes those pictures with the INTENT to distribute them to perverts, again we have a problem.

I think questions like this are in many ways ridiculous and wastes of intellectual effort. They end up being a game of semantics for those who are purposely attempting to make the issue 'sticky', and earning the ire and disgust of those who don't wish to debate things that seem so 'obvious'.

It's possibly even wrong in a strictly naturalistic sense. The possible emotional damage resulting from such an intrusion ( and again, there is no way of knowing, but it's a safe bet that there will be SOME damage ) may cause reluctance to breed by that child in the future. From that point then, you're damaging by an act of will the reproductive capability of another of your species..... *shrug*

Anyway, I've spent enough time on this. I think this thread should die.

MOJO-JOJO

[deleted irrelevant post]

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]

In Your Humble Opinion

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

infidelchic

Some examples:

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: infidelchic ]</p>