99Percent

What about circumcision? Are they asked to consent? And do you know many babies and children have died from overbleeding and infections related to circumcision?

Circumcision has, arguably, some benefits, although I personally doubt them. However that is another matter entirely. Sex is an exchange of selfish pleasures involving the body, the five senses even, I can't see really that parents enjoy seeing their babies being mutilated - they are probably thinking its for their own good and the pain the baby suffers is worth it, much like having to spank a child for misbehaviour. A normal parent is not really enjoying the spanking. In fact it is quite painful for the parent too.

And religion? Do we ask our kids whether they would like to be christians or muslims? or mormons, devil worshippers, moon cultists etc?

Religion is a core belief that gives us moral values to survive and get ahead in life. You can't expect parents not to pass on the beliefs that they think allowed them to survive and be happy in life. Let me ask you - are you a parent yourself? I fail to see the similarity with having sex with children.

But this is a western concept (the invalidity of a childs consent) that is enforced to protect children from being abused by adults. And with good reason - where sick adults are many and where sexual abuse against children are perpetrated habitually. I have seen communities where girls get married at 11 and they go on to be very able mothers. Do such children consent to being used sexually while in the "marriages"?

And it can be argued that such societies are objectively morally weaker even though they survive through times. A society that forces 11 year old girls to get married through parental arrangements stands to succumb against another society where this is not a practice, because there is less free will involved on the part of individuals composing such a society.

For example, the Aztecs routinely and brutally sacrificed their subjects in the name of their gods, instilling fear in the population but that only weakened their society tremendously and paid for it when the Spaniards conquered them. That a particular society permits objectively immoral acts as a convention does not mean that it is right for them. It is still wrong regardless, only that they haven't realized just how wrong it is and how it is hurting them in the long run.

lunachick

Yes.
That's why I'm backing out of this argument. I'm sure Intensity could easily take apart any argument I offer, as he has said, and I don't have the time available to work harder at it. His logic and justifications are, however, freakin' scary.

Over and out.

faded_Glory

I suppose this refers to my post a few pages earlier.

You must have misunderstood me. I did not bring up smoking to demonstrate that something that is harmful is therefore immoral.

The reason I brought it up was because of one of Intensity's arguments in defense of considering sexual exploitation of children to be not immoral.

He said: I know of girls who have been married off at 11 years and by 13 they are capable mothers managing stable households and they grow to be old women with no apparent sexual dysfunctions or mental disturbances. Hell, I have a sister who got married at 14 (she refused school) and she is perfectly healthy with her baby and husband.

So this psychological suffering is a western reality perpetuated by a western viewpoint.

To which I replied:

You can present as many examples of people who had sex as a child but don't show obvious emotional scars in later life, as you want. To me they fall in the same class as the argument that since my granddad always smoked as a chimney-stack yet lived to the age of 90 this proves that smoking is not bad for your health.

Do you see what I am saying: claiming to demonstrate that act X is not in many cases harmful by presenting examples of people having been subjected to act X yet not suffering adverse effects is a logical fallacy. I used the smoking example as an illustration of this logical fallacy, not as an analogy of sexual expoitation of children.

This is indeed my point. A single speeding motorist may be fined although he may not have caused an accident at that particular instance. The motorist may well use the argument that his fine is unjust because he did not in fact create an accident. Is that a valid argument?

I would say no, because the reason for considering speeding a Bad Thing is that it has a tendency, evidenced by facts, to cause harm - not that it will necessarily in all cases cause harm. Ergo, presenting counterexamples where it has in fact not done harm is not valid justification for considering speed limits in general unjust.

As you say, the situation needs to be considered from a more general viewpoint, and in the case of sexual exploitation of children there are so many documented cases of serious harm (physical and/or emotional) that preventing such cases altogether should have, and fortunately has, a vastly higher priority than allowing the gratification of a small minority of adults who by their acts run a grave risk of inflicting this damage to others.

fG

Xixax

I continue to see Intensity posting about other cultures where the children are married at a young age as evidence they are either:

A) Capable of giving consent
B) Capable of not having emotional scars from the event, regardless of giving consent or not.

Neither one is necessarily the case. Ok, they are 'able mothers'. What exactly does that have to do with whether or not early sexual experiences have damaged them in some way? Many people over come trauma of some sort to live very normal lives, but it hardly diminishes the damage or somehow makes it ok to inflict such damage.

I would argue that they do -not- have the full knowledge of what they are consenting to. Because most of those cultures have long lasting marriages as well, the long term damage is somewhat negated. It's negated mainly because the person who had sex with them so young is also their spouse later in life, and is normally responsible for taking care of them because of it being a male dominated society. Definitely not the type of culture I think deserves emulation.

Also, you continue to point to the double standard on circumcision. You would think being on this board you would have realized the simple and plain answer to this question: Because they think God said so. Since God doesn't demand they sexually exploit their children, they are ok to think it's bad. Because God tells them to cut the foreskin from a child, it's 'ok'. Not to me, not to many, but to them it's fine.

It does not justify an immoral act. A child has a poor ability to judge who to trust, and also has even less of an idea on what constitutes 'sex'. For them, they may agree repeatedly when young because of physical stimuli they feel when engaging in the act. However, most acts will be painful for obvious reasons, so even that is doubtful. Once they grow old enough however to understand the emotions behind the act of the adult, they then, RIGHTLY SO, feel violated. They were NOT given, as they were incapable of understanding the difference between their options, the ability to decide on whether or not to grant such access to their body.

Paying for a rape doesn't somehow make the rape more tasteful or moral, so the brothel idea is puzzling to me. If they can't give consent, it's rape. Fairly simple. I think if you have an issue to debate, it may be, "Who is capable of giving consent?" That's worthy of discussion, but I think asking, "Is it ok to use them without consent?" is ridiculous.

Also, the appeals to exceptions don't make it ok. Since noone I know of has the ability to predict the future emotional state of another person, they cannot safely feel that the act will not have terrible consequences on the child. In fact, it's a HIGH probability it will have a tremendous negative impact on them. That alone is enough to "be better safe than sorry".

The AntiChris

Intensity

This thread is going nowhere.

What you're really asking is:

How do we rationally justify our moral beliefs?

Once you've got this agreed, the rest is easy!

Chris

Amen-Moses

OK, I'll come clean.

I am not a paedophile by any definition of the term that I have seen, i.e I am not aroused by picture of pre-pubescent humans nor do I fantasise likewise.

I am though an "abused" person by the dictates of my society, i.e I suffered physical, mental and sexual "abuse" as a child.

The problem I have is that according to my society I should be fucked up when in fact I don't feel that I am. This has caused me to study others in some depth to find out how "abnormal" I really am.

The conclusions of these studies are that almost everyone can point to at least one incident in their childhood that could be described as "abuse" and that for the vast majority of people this "abuse" has absolutely no effect on their future sanity as a human being.

From a personal perspective the mental and physical abuse I "suffered" as a child was far more damaging than any event that could be labelled as "sexual abuse", to give an example that has probably effected me more than any other in my life; I took an IQ test at the age of 11, this test was new to the UK and I recall that it was a Canadian Phd student administering the tests. I took the test completely oblivious to what it was or what it meant and well within the time alloted scored 100% correct answers. Was I applauded for my brilliance? No I was accused of cheating, in fact I was brought (at the age of 11 remember) in front of the headmaster, the Phd student and my teacher and accused point blank of somehow seeing the answers before the test. They retested me and I purposefully answered some questions wrong and delayed handing the paper in so that I used the full 10 minutes per paper. I scored in the upper 160's on the retest btw.

The effect this had on me was profound and from then on I purposefully acted the idiot (as far as I was concerned, I was still streets ahead of the rest of the class!) In order to avoid similar stressful situations in the future.

As for sexual "abuse", we had a police constable come to our school when I was about 10 warning us that a pervert was at large in the park flashing at children, our response? Well we went looking for him for a laugh, me and several girls as well! We didn't actually find him but one of the other girls in our class did and gave us a hilarious description.

Make of that what you will btw!

Amen-Moses

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

First of all, the fact that I reject your reasons does not mean I find sexual use of children okay. Please remember that.

Helen,
And the reason you accepted as rational was which one? (I hope I'm not trying your patience too much by asking this)

Page 10 please - <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000294&p=10" target="_blank">Right Here</a>

99Percent

Sex is an exchange of selfish pleasures involving the body, the five senses even, I can't see really that parents enjoy seeing their babies being mutilated - they are probably thinking its for their own good and the pain the baby suffers is worth it, much like having to spank a child for misbehaviour.

What the parents think is not of importance. What is of importance is the pain that the child goes through. Many murderered have good intentions in their warped thinking and when one digs a little deeper, one will find there is NO medical reason for circumcision, whether parents wish that or not (just check the circumcision thread I provided a link to earlier).

Even the Aztec parents who offered their virgin daughters for sacrifice did so with good intentions and fond the experience painful. That did not make it right.

Are you saying sex is bad because it involves one party enjoying themselves?
I think the important thing that we need to focus on is the harm that supposedly comes to the child (and perhaps the padeophile) - NOT the pleasure. Unless our main concern is that one party actually reaps some benefit from the act - and then we will be discussing jealousy.

Religion is a core belief that gives us moral values to survive and get ahead in life.

Are you saying that without religion we can not get "moral values to survive and get ahead in life"?
What good is a moral value based on fear?

You can't expect parents not to pass on the beliefs that they think allowed them to survive and be happy in life.

Again, what they think is not of importance. What we should look at is the potential harm. We should discuss the effects, not the motives. If I shoot you thinking that you are going to murder me, you still die the same way you would die when a murderer shoots you. So lets focus on the effects, NOT motives.

Let me ask you - are you a parent yourself? I fail to see the similarity with having sex with children.

similarity between having sex with children and parenthood? what are you talking about?

And it can be argued that such societies are objectively morally weaker even though they survive through times

There is no objective morality.

A society that forces 11 year old girls to get married through parental arrangements stands to succumb against another society where this is not a practice, because there is less free will involved on the part of individuals composing such a society.

But there is free will when children have their genitals mutilated in these supposedly morally superior societies?
Very funny.
Free will is only important when there is conflict of interest. There is none in such sicieties. The girls live knowing its something they need to do: something honourable - and they get treated with respect.
There is harmony and everyone is happy.

lunachick
That's why I'm backing out of this argument. I'm sure Intensity could easily take apart any argument I offer, as he has said, and I don't have the time available to work harder at it. His logic and justifications are, however, freakin' scary.

Logic has always been scary. Play chess with a serious computer program and you will see how ruthless it can get and it dispassionately breaks you down.

Faded Glory

I do not deny that children growing in "westernised" societied get emotionally and psychologically scarred when they are abused sexually.

My point is, the scarring is an artifact of the society's perception of sexual use of children and NOT necessarily a consequance of being used sexually.

So, its a western reality. Helen pointed out that they are real. Yes they are real to those experiencing them, just as much as an illusion is real to the one being delusional (a schizophrenic for example). The important thing is to eliminate the agent causing the illusion and it(the illusion) vanishes. But to hold onto the illusion and stubbornly and petulantly insist its real is really pathetic.

Xixax
Definitely not the type of culture I think deserves emulation.

It depends on your value system. But it remains a fact that there are societies where sexual use of children does not result in "damaged" people. You can call them inferior cultures all you want but its not helpful. Just makes it easy on your ego.

That shows that the "damage" is as a result of environmental influence and the societal viewpoint on the matter. Which then affects the way subjects evaluate their worth in the society, their sexuality and self-esteem and image.

Not to me, not to many, but to them it's fine.


As far as I am concerned, such people have no moral authority to question padeophiles. Pain is the same whether inflicted in the name of God or in the name of pleasure. Not to mention the Euthyphro dilemma of such arbitrary morality.

It does not justify an immoral act..

This is the short-circuit I have been talking about. You are arguing [i]a priori[/b] that its immoral while the threads objective was to determine the rational explanation for the act being immoral.

Like I said, its incredible how the ego strives to be sublime.

Once they grow old enough however to understand the emotions behind the act of the adult, they then, RIGHTLY SO, feel violated

The western society teaches them that they should feel violated. Why dont they feel violated when they realize their foreskin was dismembered without their consent?

Paying for a rape doesn't somehow make the rape more tasteful or moral, so the brothel idea is puzzling to me.

I see newspaper and magazine ads saying they have all races and all ages of girls. That to me means there are businesses out there that take care of bizarre requirements (its reasonable to assume that they learnt that people who frequent such places prefer young girls). So I would Imagine if one went for a massage for example, and after one has refused to have sex with the women, they would offer young girls to entice such people into accepting the service.
So this thread would rightly be for someone confronted with such a situation where they do not have to get the consent of the girl - where the girl is being offered as a "service".

If they can't give consent, it's rape. Fairly simple. I think if you have an issue to debate, it may be, "Who is capable of giving consent?" That's worthy of discussion, but I think asking, "Is it ok to use them without consent?" is ridiculous.

Now I hope you get the picture. And its simplistic to limit the wrongness of the act to "consent".

Also, the appeals to exceptions don't make it ok.

They are not meant to make it ok: just meant to expose poor argumentation and poor logic.

In fact, it's a HIGH probability it will have a tremendous negative impact on them. That alone is enough to "be better safe than sorry".

Thank you for sharing your western perspective.

Antichris

What you're really asking is:

How do we rationally justify our moral beliefs?

Something like that. But this is a little more complicated.

Amen Moses

The conclusions of these studies are that almost everyone can point to at least one incident in their childhood that could be described as "abuse" and that for the vast majority of people this "abuse" has absolutely no effect on their future sanity as a human being.

Exactly. In the process of facing-off with ones past during therapy, otherwise harmless incidents are blown up in psychological parlance, interpreted in a manner such as to explain the cause of the "victims" mental and emotional problems.
The shrinks make their money and the society is protected from the task of coming up with rational justifications for their moral codes.

Amen Moses is female?

HelenM

Yeah but it's a looooong page...oh, I suppose it was this:

I was looking for a place where you agreed someone had a good reason but you were referring to something you said based on your reading elsewhere...

This seems to amount to "I wouldn't want it to happen to my own children [or any child I care about] so it's wrong".

That's pretty basic. I think that's implicit in what everyone here is saying.

Why is it more rational when Kant writes it than when everyone here says it?

If all you wanted was "I wouldn't be happy if it happened to my own kids so it's wrong" then it would have helped had you said so 12 pages ago.

Everyone is trying to explain WHY they wouldn't want it to happen to kids they care about and you have said their reasons are not good enough.

Therefore logically you should also reject your application of what Kant says because you are simply taken as a given that parents don't want their own kids sexually exploited. There's no reason at all given in what you said above. Let alone an irrational one. If we have to give reasons that are rational why can you accept it as a given in your own post?

So, what you won't accept with reasons from anyone else, you've strangely assumed as a given in your own post, without any reasons!

That seems very inconsistent to me.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Helen

brighid

Amen Moses,

I understand your reasons for feeling as you do and investigating the “abnormal” natures resultant from abuse. As another posted stated, one cannot predict how ANY human being is going to react to an abusive situation OR how that particular situation will affect said child/person in the short and long term.

For whatever subjective reasons, specific to your unique perspective and experience the IQ test incident was much more traumatic for you then the sexual abuse. I can’t even begin to speculate why that might be, but for purposes of this conversation I am not even sure if those reasons are beneficial. Any given number of people could (and probably have to some degree or another) experienced similar situations as your IQ test (I vaguely remember seeing a movie with a similar plot, but cannot recall the name) and each person will likely react very different because of their subjective nature. If we knew the life experiences of those people we might be able to predict some of those reactions, but that would be difficult. Some will hardly be affected by it, some will be mildly affected and others, like yourself will be profoundly affected by it. Regardless of HOW any given subject is actually affected by that particular experience I think it can be argued (and agreed upon) that accusing a child/person with cheating without evidence, and simply because said person scored perfectly is WRONG in any case.

I have been unable to read through this thread, even as a moderator, and asked for clemency from my fellow mods because of the VERY personal nature and experience I have with childhood sexual abuse. I have read the last page and started to read the 1st few and actually became nauseated and had to stop. I have had a myriad of experiences with childhood sexual abuse – some ranging from rather inconsequential to rather horrible and profound. It has certainly affected my life and in some periods more acutely then others. But all in all, I feel I am not “f*cked up.” However, there might be some people who argue against that statement! I know many, many women who have suffered from abuse of a sexual nature and out of all of them I am the only one (at least that is how I feel) that doesn’t have major life issues because of it and in many cases I have suffered FAR greater abuse then they have. Well, at least I am not incapacitated, view all men as abusing scum, or have any dysfunctional sexual hang-ups. So, you see, it is impossible to predict how an instance of abuse, exploitation or even a bad experience will affect any person.

No person should be exploited or abused PERIOD – no man, woman or child. This, to me is just common sense even though I realize many people do not possess even a modicum of that sense. A child, who because of limited understanding due to natural brain development cannot actually comprehend the nature of sex, the physical and emotional consequences of sex, or handle to responsibilities that come with having sex (such as possible impregnation, STD’s) cannot give consent – even if it appears that way. Later in life, when said child can understand the implications, rights and responsibilities he or she had with regard to sex will very likely feel harmed to some degree or another. Because you, for whatever combination of reasons, weren’t profoundly affected by your incident(s) does not mean a) you weren’t harmed, possibly in ways you don’t understand or recognize b) that others aren’t harmed or c) that it doesn’t actually cause harm and therefore can have any moral justification.

On a more personal and anecdotal note: When a person grows up in a family or in a culture that abuse is common – say as in my case or in that of women in present day Afghanistan those sorts of things are “normal” and in order to survive those persons adapt, and even agree with and continue with the traditions that harm themselves and others (such as with Female Genital Mutilation, child brides, etc.) These people way go on to lead OK lives, or even be happy, or give the appearance of being happy. It is how one survives. Eventually these things take their toll and when one is exposed to a different way; say a family that isn’t abusive, kind men, or women who don’t experience pain when having sexual intercourse because they are not mutilated … it is often then that the pain, shame and anger sets in. That is one of the reasons why abusers isolate their family and victims – it makes it easier to abuse.

Sometimes, I still find myself surprised at how wonderful my husband is, or that I actually live a married life that is without bitter arguing, physical, emotional and mental abuse. It took me years to understand that lots of people don’t live like that. I have chosen to allow my abuse to make me stronger and in a certain respect …well I wouldn’t say benefited … but I am better for those challenges … however, I would not wish my experiences upon my worst enemy. I also know that I am different then most and for reasons I am not completely sure. I have suffered through things that put most people in asylums, or drive them to drug abuse. But my personal experience and outcome does not absolve or morally justify the actions of the men and women who have abused me in every sort of way as a child and naïve, young woman. I simply overcame.

As an adult woman, with a much greater degree of control over my life I do not have to suffer abuse from anyone. As a child, I did not have that choice. I could not protect myself and in some cases all I knew was abuse.

I am glad that you weren’t harmed by the sexual abuse you suffered, and I am sorry for the harm caused you by those ignorant teachers. I hope, by this point in the thread it can be agreed upon that children should not be used for selfish purposes,harmed by the anger, etc. of adults.

Brighid

HelenM

With all due respect, the examples you gave of 'abuse' are far different from what others have experienced.

I think it's unwise to generalize that other people - whose experiences may be far worse than yours - would have no worse after-effects from them than you had from yours.

Nevertheless I'm glad you haven't experienced ongoing difficult after-effects from yours. And I'm not saying it's not 'abuse'. I'm just saying, it comes in way worse forms than what you described.

Helen