Ted Hoffman

Helen,
Ok, very quickly...
Intensity when you write such things it simply shows how little you know about Western counseling. This is a very inaccurate stereotype. Please do some reading and find out more about Western counseling and therapy so you understand all of what's out there. Only a portion of it is Freudian and all good therapists understand the importance of not leading someone into creating memories. And the goal is to help the person live their life now, not 'how many interesting memories can we find?'

With all due respect, you don't know what I know concerning western counseling. Please address my arguments not what you think I know. What I know is not of importance, what is of importance is what I have said.

I disagree and so do most people here, evidently.

Since you are so many, and you all disagree, you must be right. Is that correct?

You sound like an advocate of things in other cultures that most posters here abhor.

I haven't advocated for anything. I did not promise to post only what posters like so dont make me look like a misfit. I am not here to popularize any idea.

You would if it was equally traumatic and had equal future effects.

It has been known to be fatal. When you die, there is no future, so which one is worse?

You are using the word 'use' in a neutral sense but brighid was meaning 'exploit' when she wrote 'use'

Evidently you can read brighids mind.

I will repost what she wrote:

I don't see the word exploit there. Whether they consent and whether we pay them or not, we use them for selfish purposes.


AntiChris said: I'm not sure if you mean that illogicality stands on its own as "wrong", or only when it's combined with the creation of "emotional stress", or are you saying it's more wrong when combined with "emotional stress"?

Yes

AntiChris said: This argument annoys me when it's used merely as a device to lend a veneer of authority to an opposing viewpoint.

Well, sorry to raise your royal hackles your majesty.

Would it depend on whether the children actually did or did not suffer?

I need to know why you find this kind of speculation necessary. In the same vein, circumcision is not considered immoral yet the children DO SUFFER.

I find it odd that you appear to be quite happy to say that paedophiles are wrong to use children sexually solely on the assumption that paedophiles must share (in your opinion) an irrational desire (they don't want their own children used) with the rest of society!

I see nothing odd in it. They have the feeling, whether irrational or not. And padeophilia aggravates the feeling, so they should not engage in it.

Whether the feeling is or is not irrational is the subject of the next question.

Quite clearly it's generally believed that sex with adults is, or might be, harmful to children. The mere fact that you stipulated a lower age limit (8) suggests that even you acknowledge that there may be an element of risk.

Sex has an element of risk even when it is with adults. Yes there is an element of risk, moreso with very young childreh, heck, it can prove fatal. I don't deny that.

You're arguing that any apparent harm to children is either the result of western societal indoctrination or because the 'sexual use' in question is not within the bounds of what you consider "normal" sexual exploitation (whatever that might be).

This is incorrect. Western group psychology only applies to grown up people who were abused in childhood. Their self-image is affected by how they interpret the events in their past.

Whilst I don't doubt that western societal attitudes to sexuality do play a significant role in contributing to the creation of 'victims' (by engendering guilt and shame),

Oh thank you. That makes three of us against a multitude.

I am equally certain that they cannot account for all the physical and mental distress undoubtedly suffered by at least some young children when used sexually by adults.

Thanks again.

I think you could certainly make a case for lowering the age of consent but nothing you've said convinces me that young children should be exposed to the potential risks of abuse.

My intention was NOT to convince ANYONE that young children should be exposed to the potential risks of abuse. Please.

All I wanted to show is that the case against the idea that young children exposed to abuse end up as vegetables or mental cases is not strong.

The AntiChris

Intensity

Thanks for the clarification.

Apology accepted.

Now if you'd stated this explicitly as your objective at the very beginning of this thread....

Chris

John Page

I suggest that the revulsion that exploitation of children brings about in (most) of us is an evolved behavior pattern that leads to more succesful societies.

Anyone care to come up with practical examples of sexual exploitation of children that would be beneficial to the development of human society? It its so bad, then why do some people do it?

Would we end up with a different answer when considering any other adult and infant animal species? What about aliens?

My opinion? Our genetic future is vested in our kids and (I guess) humans have an innate tendency to respect other's kids as you expect them to respect yours.

Amos

Sadly, I agree, but if that is true an increase of its occurance is evidence of social demise and this makes sexual perversion a re-action ("behavior pattern") rather than a rational action.

Ted Hoffman

Anti Chris said: Now if you'd stated this explicitly as your objective at the very beginning of this thread....

I did not say that was my objective in beginning this thread. If it was, I would have stated so.

John Page stated: I suggest that the revulsion that exploitation of children brings about in (most) of us is an evolved behavior pattern that leads to more succesful societies.

This is simplistic. There is no correlation between sexual habits to what you call "successful societies". Unless you would like to demonstrate it. Its just plain speculation, which is not helpful.
I dont think its an "evolved" behaviour pattern in any way (by "evolved", I assume you are trying to invoke darwinian ethics and are trying to imply its in our genes) because its evident that this revulsion is as a result of group psychology and societal indoctrination. This is evidenced by the fact that as this thread started, many were content to say sexual use of children is wrong because they find it revolting. The fact that some societies have sanctioned it proves its conditioned stance, not an inborn one.

John Page : Anyone care to come up with practical examples of sexual exploitation of children that would be beneficial to the development of human society? It its so bad, then why do some people do it?

I dont understand the purpose of the question. Are you saying that some people wouldn't do it if it were so bad? Or are you saying if its not beneficial to thedevelopment of the society, then its bad?

About being beneficial, I think this is a wrong question. Sexual behaviours are not by design beneficial to the development of human society. Is anal sex beneficial to the development of human society? Is homosexual behaviour beneficial to the development of human society? And fetishism? I don't think they are. Even heterosexual sex is propelled mainly by gratification of physical desire NOT procreation (which is beneficial to the development of human society).

About why some poeple do it: Some people do it because it gratifies their sexual desires.

John Page: Would we end up with a different answer when considering any other adult and infant animal species? What about aliens?

The question is a wrong one, so maybe you ought to review it first. I think the greatest impediment to sex between adult and infant animal species is the size of the infants which often makes sex anatomically impossible. Adults can also crush the infants to death while attempting to have sex with them if mating involves supporting the weight of the male. Another reason is that the adult females mate while they are on heat and the males also engage in sex after "smelling" the scents the females give off while on heat (I have also seen [on discovery channel] females rubbing themselves against oblivious males to get their attention). So, normally, only the adult females can trigger sexual arousal in the males. The kids therefore remain safe.

Other factors are obviously present which a behavioral scientist can underline for us.

Aliens are not known to exist. Even if they did, we would be very likely different from them in this respect because we evolved differently under different environments.

John Page My opinion? Our genetic future is vested in our kids and (I guess) humans have an innate tendency to respect other's kids as you expect them to respect yours.

Sex with kids does not damage their genetic make up, it would be irrational for us to abhor sex for the fear that the genes of our kids will be messed up with. Adults are not known to respect kids (they demand respect from kids for christs sake!): adults are known to protect kids. That protection covers preventing other adults encroaching on the personal privacy of the kids.

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

brighid

Intensity,

Coincidentally, Helen did seem to be able to read my mind in this instance Using someone (to me) means doing something to that person that they aren't either completely aware is happening, or not giving consent to at all. Use denotes possession - to use a car to drive to work, but of course inanimate objects cannot be correlated properly to animate human beings. To use a child for purposes that do in fact cause mental, emotional and physical harm - especially proven and forseeable harm seems to be to be wrong. If a person is able to freely participate, understand and take responsibility for his/her actions and the forseeable consequences of engaging in said action - as a FREE agent - the one is not being USED by another for a means to an end. One whois participating freely with the knowledge of the benefits and consequences - is not being USED. I cannot see a clear distinction between use and exploit, except perhaps exploit is more insidieous.

Furthermore, please leave the medical discussion of male circumcision in the proper threads. If you do indeed find male circumcision to be a form of child abuse, how then can you state that a child being used by adults for sexual gratification is NOT being harmed?

It seems to me that sex with children is part of your cultural upbringing. One in which you have been taught that it is OK to have child brides, sex with children above the age of 8 (from your suggestion on age) and that the Western influence felt in your society is suddenly making that notion barbaric. Perhaps you resent that. Perhaps you having to come to terms with what that means for you, your own actions, or actions of those that you love and therefore your own pain and suffering comes in. However, I can't know that, but from the tone of your posts those sorts of things are suggested.

I think you have a very distorted view of Western society and that is not unusual. I certainly don't agree with all aspects of my own Western societal view and I think we have MUCH to learn from cultures outside of our own. However, there are certain aspects of non-Western cultures that are certainly barbaric and contribute to the horrendous living conditions millions of the worlds populous suffer from. One of those things is the MISUSE of children in slave labor, sweat shops, as sexual slaves, child brides, FMG, women and female children being the possession of male family members, female infanticide, the lack of reproductive rights for men and women (including condom use in the prevention of the spread of AIDS) and the overall inhumane treatment women and children suffer from all over the world (including the US.)

Just because something has been traditionally done, and that women and female children appear to be (or have been conditioned to be) happy in repressive and abusive situations does not infact make it OK. I don't disagree with you - with the caveat that one must add SOME (and not overgeneralize) that SOME Western ideas about sex, specifically those that come from a Judeo-Christian (including Islam with is primarily "eastern.) perspective are wrong and equally repressive. However the West does not = Christian, etc.

You have absolutely failed to prove your point, or provided ANY credible basis on which to derive an objective view that sex with children is or should be acceptable by any standard. It may be acceptable where you come from, but that does not actually mean it should be acceptable. Just as it is acceptable to prohibit women from being educated in Afghanistan, or how apartheid was acceptable to the ruling elite in South Africa, or how slavery was condoned by the Church and brought to the Americas, or forced abortions in China .... all of these things are accepted practices. Even practices embraced by women, or ones they simply tolerate because they have no other choice. They are all wrong and the use of any person, specifically persons that do not have the actual cognitive ability to understand what they are "participating" in, have the ability to accept both the benefits AND consequences of said action and therefore is NOT a FREE agent - is WRONG! Even if they accept their lot in life.

Brighid

Ted Hoffman

brighid,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. You concede that coincidentally Helen read your mind, but you deny Helen her brief joy when you say:

[i]"I cannot see a clear distinction between use and exploit, except perhaps exploit is more insidieous[sic]".[/b].
This means you expressed your thoughts in the earlier post (the one Helen had to refer to your mind about) without an acute awareness of the distinction between "use" and "exploit" and so you did not bother to make any distinction. And that was my point when I objected to Helens mind reading tactic to discredit what I was saying.
However, exploit has an unethical connotation involved as you have stated now.

brighid said: To use a child for purposes that do in fact cause mental, emotional and physical harm - especially proven and forseeable harm seems to be to be wrong.

My contention here is that sexual use does not necessarily cause mental, emotional and physical harm. So that alone is not enough to declare it as wrong. Do you agree that there are numerous cases of people who were used sexually when they were children and have not suffered any clear mental, emotional and physical harm? The peruvian girl (the youngest mother recorded) is an example. Helen objected saying her case is an aberration. But for your case to stand, three successive aberrations would have to follow each other:

1. The girl was ovulating at 5 years
2. An adult had sex with her
3. She grew to be a healthy adult with no known mental, emotional and physical problems.

How do you explain the above? was her whole life an aberration? To wave it away as an aberration is a case of special pleading and pretty soon, anything that goes against your arguments would be an aberration. Other than her, there are communities where girls are married off between 8 and 16 years and they grow up to be able mothers. These demonstrate that children can indeed be used sexually, just like adults and with normal results.
The problem here is that in western studies (carried out on western subjects, who lived in a western society, and by social scientists and psychologists who have a western perspective on the subject) indicate that sexual use of children causes mental, emotional and physical harm. I attributed this to the western way these victims evaluate their self-image and group psychology, without that western perspective, many of the cases would be healthy and normal adults.

Someone objected and said that the examples I provide are of girls who end up getting married to the adults that use them sexually, and thats why they are not affected emotionally by the sexual experiences they are subjected to at that early age. This argument (conversely) says that children who are used sexually are disturbed only because they later end up with different sexual partners (than the ones who used them sexually) this is untrue because there are cases of remarrying in such societies and in such cases, sexual partners are exchanged with no visible psycho-sexual problems.

If you do indeed find male circumcision to be a form of child abuse, how then can you state that a child being used by adults for sexual gratification is NOT being harmed?

This is not what I said. Please. I said the child is [b]NOT necessarily harmed[b]. They can however get harmed for a number of reasons: (1) When the child is psychologically against the act (that is, she has been told it is a bad/evil thing) so the act ends up as an invasive act of violence on her body - or whatever basis has been used to classify the act as dirty (2) When the person initiating the act is physically rough and violent (3) When the child looks back on the incident and allows it to negatively colour her self-image and sexuality (4) The child is too young (any age less than seven would be too young). I have demonstrate in different parts of this thread that these four reasons can also apply to adults who undergo (wanted or) unwanted sexual experiences.

I have read and seen too many stories of girls who are abused sexually by their fathers and the girls are not fully aware that their fathers are actually abusing them until years later. And of course years later, the girls (now women) look back and feel sorry for themselves and undergo therapy and counselling and normally, the counsellors orchestrate a session in which the daughter is allowed to confront the one who abused her and the father is also allowed to deal directly with their actions. A typical exchange would go like this:

the daughter tells the father that: "You used me sexually when I was too young and that was wrong because I was afraid, trusting and not physcically strong enough to thwart your advances. You invaded my body without my consent and have affected my adult relationships. I am angry at you because you hurt me and took advantage of me"

The father tearfully sobs: "I am sorry that I did that and I know I have no right to ask for your forgiveness. At the time I was sick and did not know why I was doing that. I thought only you could love me and I am very sorry and I know there is nothing I can say to change what I did, but I hope you find the strength to forgive me. I will spend the rest of my life regreting all those things I did to you. I have got treatment now and I will try to live with myself. I know this will sound meaningless considering the barbaric and cruel act I did to you, but I love you"

&lt;a tearful silence then ensues after which the counsellor takes over&gt;

From such cases, its clear that sexual use of children does NOT necessarily result in physical harm. But how the future adult will evaluate that experience can cripple their ability to lead normal lives.

It seems to me that sex with children is part of your cultural upbringing

No its not. But there are societies I know of that marry off girls to adults at a very early age (by western standards).

Just because something has been traditionally done, and that women and female children appear to be (or have been conditioned to be) happy in repressive and abusive situations does not infact make it OK

That is the question of this thread. Why is it not okay?

It may be acceptable where you come from, but that does not actually mean it should be acceptable

Its not about acceptability. Its about the rational basis for that unacceptability against the fact that: (1) Sex with children does not necessarily result in physical harm (2) Sex with children does not damage the ability of the children to have healthy future relationships and psycho-sexual lives.

My question is whether you have a rational reason for finding it unacceptable. Or is it just fashionable to term it unacceptable since you are in a western society?

brighid said :You have absolutely failed to prove your point, or provided ANY credible basis on which to derive an objective view that sex with children is or should be acceptable by any standard.

You have missed my point. I have not been attempting to "provide ANY credible basis on which to derive an objective view that sex with children is or should be acceptable". I asked a question, and I have since been debunking the reasons people advance for regarding sexual use of children as wrong. I have no intention of encouraging people to allow sexual use of children. I am just happy to expose the fact that this loathing (or is it padeophil-phobia) is as irrational as racism and other forms of bigotry. Whether it is good (to loathe sexual use of children) is another matter altogether. What I am interested in is a rational basis for this loathing.

brighid said : ...They are all wrong and the use of any person, specifically persons that do not have the actual cognitive ability to understand what they are "participating" in, have the ability to accept both the benefits AND consequences of said action and therefore is NOT a FREE agent - is WRONG! Even if they accept their lot in life.

Those other examples have clear reasons for being considered wrong. Remember, repeating it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong, ad infinitum will not make it wrong, dear brighid.

Why do children need to "have the actual cognitive ability to understand what they are 'participating' in"?.
Since we have outlawed the consent of children, we, as adults, have the responsibility of deciding whether it is wrong or right, so you cant raise the lack of ability of children to provide their consent as an objection. It would only be a valid objection if the children could provide a valid consent to the act.

You are like one who has fired a referee as incompetent, then after the other team has scored a goal, you object to the other team "but the refree has not accepted!".
Or one who has decided animals arent qualified to decide on whther or not they should be slaughtered, then when the butcher comes with the sharp knife, you object "This is cruel. The cow does not know that it will die and we haven't asked it if we can kill it!"

So the ability of children to consent or to fully grasp the consequences of the act is a non-argument since it has already been ruled out and therefore has no bearing on how we evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the act.

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

alexander74

Wow. I have spent the last three days, in my spare time, reading the last thirteen pages of this topic. This is my first time posting, so bear with me.

First, I don't advocate sex with children, but Intensity has made some excellent points, and I think I see what he is saying.

Can one person give a rational argument for a moral (read: emotional) belief? I don't believe so. As Intensity has stated, most of our beliefs come from the society in which we were raised. Also, time plays a part. Remember, women used to not be able to work, as their place was in the home (strong southern accent, with Bible in hand).

I do have a point to add, which may be relevant both to Western culture and others. Are children to be children based on pubescence? In other words, should we look at cases based on pre-pubescent, pubescent (in puberty), and post-pubescent (adolescent)? These distinctions may be important, due to the hormonal reactions in these three age sections. Their bodies, minds, and emotions are in a whirl, but these feelings subside.

As an example, a friend of mine dated a fifteen-year-old while he was twenty-two. Her sexual experience far exceeded his (she told him that she had been with six other men sexually, including one that was married). Remember, part of Western culture relates the idea of children with innocence, and having sex with a 'child' takes away that innocence. My question is: Should my friend go to jail, or whatever, for having sex with a 'child'? A 'child' who admitted to liking sex for the pleasure, and who had the knowledge and experience to use contraceptives.

Well, that's it. I hope I didn't ramble too much, or misrepresent Intensity's point (apologies if I did).

alexander

The AntiChris

We have not "outlawed the consent of children".

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.

Why should children be raped but not adults?

Chris

Ted Hoffman

Alexander,
Welcome to IIDB. This as they say is a definitive site for almost all areas of knowledge. Why did you take particular interest in this post?

Alexander said: Intensity has made some excellent points, and I think I see what he is saying.

Intensity &lt;blushes&gt;: Well, thank you. There was a certain echidna who admitted my argument was watertight but after she made some gaffe, she got embarrased and left in a huff.

Alexander: Can one person give a rational argument for a moral (read: emotional) belief? I don't believe so.

There are indeed rational arguments for certain moral values. Morality, I beleive, is based on purpose (normally survival purpose and purposes that promote harmony and the well being of humans in a society). If a moral value provides a particular utilitarian purpose, then I would think its rationally justified.

But some are purely based on instincts, emotions or indoctrination as is the case we are dealing with here. In such cases, such moral stances are irrational. Note that this does not preclude that they have utilitarian values.

Are children to be children based on pubescence? In other words, should we look at cases based on pre-pubescent, pubescent (in puberty), and post-pubescent (adolescent)? These distinctions may be important, due to the hormonal reactions in these three age sections. Their bodies, minds, and emotions are in a whirl, but these feelings subside.

With time, society has provided age limits and for good reasons because the mental development is not always in par with physical development. But nature knows why it allows a five year old to ovulate while we know for all intents and purposes that such a person is a very young child. (Oh, btw, she had to deliver via caesarean operation). Nature also knows why an aduly would even think of having sex with such a child. Its easy of course to dismiss such adults as mental cases. And our reality becomes less demanding, more normal and simple.

Alexander: Well, that's it. I hope I didn't ramble too much, or misrepresent Intensity's point (apologies if I did).

I dont beleive you did.