echidna

Fair question, but not at all.

98% of the time it is either I have made and error, or they have, or we simply agree to disagree. Illiterate, a sociopath and dickhead are only reserved for the remaining 2%.

We all have our presuppositions & personal “biases”. I claim no superiority over the next person in this realm. You’ll note that A-M has raised specific instances which I have acknowledged as valid, cultural sexual initiations for instance.

As such I consider that I am as open as the next person to new data or new reasoning. I have made many errors in the past & will continue to do so, but hopefully acknowledging them publicly when I make them. However on this thread I am crystal clear. I pride myself on engaging in constructive conversations. At times however this is not possible, particularly when the other party has another agenda.

Unfortunately sociopaths, illiterates and dickheads do exist & judging by his thick skin and experience on other boards, I suspect this is not the first time that Amen-Moses has heard these words.

Allow me to ask you a question. If a person was a regular poster here, and was also an enthusiastic proponent of paedophilia here and on other boards, with a known track record (which you have been independently advised of), would that affect how you would treat them ?

I am bigoted against 30 year old men who indecently assault 8 year old girls in the name of altruism, and their sympathisers !!!

If you have a problem with that … well … tough.

In fact I’m also bigoted against rapists. Do you think there’s maybe some therapy I can seek to cure my bigotry ?

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Helen, you are on topic and you raise good points. But the only problem with your reasons are that those same reasons: authority figures, threats, blame etc work against adults too.

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?

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?

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?

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.

This vengeance could also be a case of misplaced aggression based on the "victim" status society attributed to those who were "abused" sexually.

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.

The AntiChris

echidna

You're clearly convinced that this thread is essentially about defending paedophilia. This wasn't my interpretation of the original question (although it would be helpful if Intensity were a little more specific). In any event this is no reason to assume that everyone who questions your views is an apologist for child abuse.

You do yourself no favours with these petulant implied slurs.

Chris

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.

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.

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.

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

The AntiChris

Intensity

Surely, the point is that children are more susceptible to this kind of manipulation and, the younger they are, the less able they are to cope with unwanted intrusion.

Because they're different? More vulnerable both physically and psychologically?

Maybe because they don't want to be "used"?

Chris

Ted Hoffman

Infinity Lover
Hello kids. Would YOU like to be sexually exploited?
If you'd feel kind of embarrased about placing such an advertisment, perhaps, maybe, that just might be your concience talking.

As adults we establish what is good and bad in the society. Kids have no concept of what is going on - heck, some dont even know what sex is.

If your opinion is that we arent capable of answering the question so we should ask kids, thats very unfortunate.

AntiChris
I don't think it is irrelevant.

In an earlier post you defined "child" as "one below the age of consent". In the UK that would include anyone below the age of 16. So, does your definition include everyone ranging from newborn babies through to young adults approaching their 16th birthday? Is it reasonable to make the same moral judgements for such a wide range of ages?

I provided more than one definition of the word child. Check again.

It is irrelevant because there is NO universal consensus about what age one ceases being a child.
So what is a child in my country is not necessarily a child in your country. We wont get anywhere if we start arguing what a child is. So we will go by what is perceived as a child wherever each of us is posting from. Even without the "legal definition" we all know who we can reasonably describe as a child, so lets use that.

Also, what specific activities did you have in mind when you used the phrase: "sexually exploited"? Your definition, "to make use of selfishly or unethically", is hardly helpful.

I simply meant engaging children in sexual activities, the way we engage adults.

Because this is a very emotive topic, you're obviously going to get plenty of outspoken responses, but I'm not at all sure everyone's answering the same question.

Just answer what you can with what you understand the question to be. variety is not in itself a bad thing.

echidna
I see, you both reject all western data on this. Presumably you must also reject all western data on the negative impacts of slavery, negative impacts of capital punishment, negative impacts of rape, negative impacts of assault, negative impacts of torture

We don't need western society to tell us that the above are bad, thank you. Your hasty generalizations are not impressive.

I have provided examples of healthy societies where children are engaged in sex by and with adults. So this "suffering", battered, violated, sullied, screwed-up and abused image attributed to people who were engaged in sex while they were still young is a western concept. And a western reality that is superimposed by the western society.

How would you suggest that the conversation proceed ? Personally I don’t know

The conversation should proceed on pure reason, bereft of any emotionalism or cultural jingoism and bias.

How does my code of ethics become relevant unless this discussion is aimed at subscribing to that ethical motif? So lets leave personal appeals (or appeal to humanity like "how can you do that to a child?!!") out of this discussion please.

Linda
A child is NOT a miniature adult. A child is a person whose physical, mental and emotional growth has not yet fully developed; therefore, a child is not capable of giving consent.

So, going by your reasoning, if one is married to a woman, who later suffers an accident and gets mentally imbalanced, one should not engage in sex with her - right?
Do children consent to getting their genitals mutilated in the name of circumcision?

And yet the society sanctions this violent act which not only violates the personal autonomy of children, but actually removes their physical body parts.

It does not matter whether the adult "speaks or touches" softly. Intimidation is present by the very fact that the adult has power that the child lacks.
What kind of power are you talking about? And what does power have to do with sex, unless you see sex as a painful, unpleasant and damaging act.

Is it illegal for geniuses to have sex with average people? Is it bad because adults are physically stronger?

This same reason can be applied against those married to cripples, or "feeble" partners (maybe due to muscular impairment) so the idea of power is unacceptable.

echidna
I am bigoted against 30 year old men who indecently assault 8 year old girls in the name of altruism, and their sympathisers !!!

You have a right to be bigoted, most people are so you cannot claim any monopoly over that bigotry.
Thats why my question implies we all think engaging children in sexual activities is wrong.

If you can not provide any rational justification for your strong antipathy towards such people, you are being irrational.

The mission of this board is to help release humanity from the bonds of irrationality.

After shouting yourself hoarse, please try to reason things out.

But it will be a waste of bandwidth if all you can post is:

You have made your position crystal clear. I doubt that anybody here would be worried about not getting your approval and this belligerent prima donna attitude is not helping your cause. Thank you for telling us you are bigoted. We are impressed and are very proud of you since you are obviously selfless and very altruistic. We lesser mortals look up to you for reasons for your enviable ethical and moral code.

Don't tell us there are no reasons behind that moral mask you adorn so resplendently. There must be. Begrudge us not of this pure reason oh, ye echidna.

And if there be none, how can you call it moral?

Amos

Exactly Jane and that's the difference betweeen exploration and exploitation.

Exploration is from the inside out and is like a response to our inner drives and feelings while exploitation is from the outside in and prematurily awakens these feelings. It so betrays the inner child (man) and is a the cost of our integrity. We feel betrayed.

Ted Hoffman

AntiChris,

Surely, the point is that children are more susceptible to this kind of manipulation and, the younger they are, the less able they are to cope with unwanted intrusion.

You assume its unwanted. They can be persuaded and be told its okay.
As far as unwanted goes, even adults dont want "unwanted intrusions" - in fact adults have worse problems coping because their self-images are more reinforced compared to children.

What do you mean by "cope" - cope with the consequences? Because the consequenses do not have to need "coping" - i.e. they are not necessarily bad.
If you mean "thwarting" - heck we have crippled adults, physically weak adults etc. Should we ban having sex with such people because they cant defend themselves?

Because they're different? More vulnerable both physically and psychologically?

By vulnerable do you mean susceptible to manipulation or susceptible to damaging consequences? Because if its the latter, then its based on some negative preconception.

As far as physical damage is concerned, (1)there are other physically damaging acts like circumcision which the society sanctions. So why should the physical damage from sex be so fatal?
For christs sake kids die from overbleeding and infection of wounds arising from circumcision - and it goes on!
(2) physical damage is there even among adults who have "smaller organs" - and require gentleness. So kids would have no monopoly over physical damage. Interested people can be told to excersise gentleness right?

Psychological "vulnerability" is purely a function of the view the society chooses to hold in regard to the act. Which, AFAIK, is not written in stone and is not universal in the strictest sense.

Maybe because they don't want to be "used"?

Even adults don't want to be used. Having sex with someone is not using them.

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.

At the same time it has resulted in bigotry towards homosexuality, padeophilia and all sorts of "deviant" sexual behaviour. People have ended up being deprived of familial love and self-images have been damaged in the process. Virgins failing to bleed during their first nuptial encounters have been treated as outcasts etc.

Many evils have been committed and lives lost in the name of romanticizing sex - a purely physical act.

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.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

Ted Hoffman

Amos
Exactly Jane and that's the difference betweeen exploration and exploitation.

Exploration is from the inside out and is like a response to our inner drives and feelings while exploitation is from the outside in and prematurily awakens these feelings. It so betrays the inner child (man) and is a the cost of our integrity. We feel betrayed.

"We"? the child or the adult?
What you have offered is an romanticization of the act of sex. Quibbling about semantic nuances between exploration and exploitation won't help us much.
Sex with kids can be made explorational for them. In any case, kids, being the tabla rassa they are, should find every act explorational, a judgemental adult with a negative stance is the one who can describe the act as exploitative.

99Percent

Children can find "explorational" acts to be very uncomfortable, if not downright painful.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that children, due to their innocence, trust adults who are close to them because they still need to learn how to distinguish what is wrong or right. So an adult can easily abuse this trust for his own sexual gratification.

A child might seem to consent to an act, but later on when he/she grows up, will realize that he was taken advantage of, since he/she didn't really know what was it all about. One should be aware when one is losing innocence, not realize it years later.

The difference is that, one person, the adult, is betraying the natural trust of the child. Sex should always come from equal positions of consent, otherwise its exploitation. The case of an adult/child relationshp is clearly not so. The adult has obviously complete authority. Thats what makes it so wrong IMO.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>