Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vesica · 09-06-2002, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Exploitation here means "to make use of selfishly or unethically"
My question is, why is it wrong(ethically and morally) to sexually exploit children.

I see....Well then, My question is who decides if somthing is selfish or unethical?
The victim? The 'owners' of the victim's body i.e. the parents? Judges? Public opinion?

MOJO-JOJO · 09-06-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
Maybe we can just say it is a discussion between people and leave off the totally bigotted connotations of "normal", hmmm?

Amen-Moses

So are you a pedophile that considers yourself normal? Or are you calling me a bigot for saying that adult pedophiles are NOT normal?

~~~Normal, healthy, well-adjusted father of two

JerryM · 09-06-2002, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesica:


I see....Well then, My question is who decides if somthing is selfish or unethical?
The victim? The 'owners' of the victim's body i.e. the parents? Judges? Public opinion?

That's really a rather open-ended question. The answer is all of the above. Anyone can make a moral judgement about anything. Can you be more specific?

Amen-Moses · 09-06-2002, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by himynameisPwn:
Sexual exploitation is wrong everywhere, regardless, because by definition it is wrong. Why can't you grasp that?

Because it is complete bollocks! Just defining something to be wrong does not explain why it is wrong, sexual exploitation is endemic in all societies, plain exploitation even more so.

Redefine exploitation and it might not be wrong, but as it was previously defined, ANY and ALL forms of exploitation are ALWAYS wrong by definition.

In which case we are effectively all living in immoral societies?

Regardless of whether the ends justify the means, exploitation is none the less immoral.

Fine, now tell me WHY!

In your situation, you've violated the law

AAAAARGHHHH, I haven't broken any damn laws in the country in which the acts were committed, why can't you get that through your thick skin and into that mushy grey matter? Let's say you were 19 and newly married to your childhood sweetheart, also 19, and went on holiday to China, would you be pissed off if just as you were in the middle of your passionate embrace the authorities dragged you off for a few years in a Chinese prison for breaking the law?

, but morally, I'd say, 16 year olds are(ussually), aware of their sexuality enough that its really not kiddie porn.

How about if they LOOK like 12 year olds?

However, if the kids were exploited into child porn, its wrong nonetheless as you are promoting exploitation.

What fucking kids? These are ADULTS (edited by Moderator to remove ad hominem comment).

Porn in and of itself is not exploitation, it just happens that when it comes to children, who are not aware of consequences etc.

Shit a fucking brick this is like conversing with a brick wall, I will type this slowly ... N O C H I L D P O R N, if you want to talk about child porn go start a new thread!

If however, you said 7 year olds, then thats a bit too much.

Not me! I never mentioned any age that wasn't perfectly legal in some country in the world.

7 year olds can't really decide sexually whats in their best interests,

what you are insinuating is that it is at the point at which a person becomes able to decide what is in their best interests that they should then be allowed to explore their own sexuality, is that correct?

and it would be sexual exploitation no matter what the circumstances. If the parents of the children themselves had taken the pictures, you're still taking advantage of a young child to appease your desires, when the child can't fully understand or know whats going on.

t pictures are you referring too?

The laws definition of adulthood is what it is not because everyone suddenly becomes an adult at 18, but because by 18 you should be sufficiently experienced and self-aware that you can make your own descisions

if you aren't? Just because someone attains some magic age then they are suddenly on their own? Why is the law aset at 18 in the US when the average age of first sexual intercourse (note FULL intercourse not the average age of first starting to explore their sexuality) is 15? Where is the sense in that?

Amen-Moses

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]

Amen-Moses · 09-06-2002, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MOJO-JOJO:
So are you a pedophile that considers yourself normal? Or are you calling me a bigot for saying that adult pedophiles are NOT normal?

I am not a paedophile in my own country but I would be in some others, like the US or China. As to whether I am "normal" you would first have to define what that even means!

As to whether you are a bigot then yes if you think people in other countries who are not breaking any of their own laws are paedophiles purely becasue your society is different to theirs then that would make you a bigot in my view!

Amen-Moses

The Other Michael · 09-06-2002, 03:42 PM

Let's try to be a bit more careful about not calling other posters names. I've edited one comment out.

I'm of two minds about the question to Amos-Moses in re "are you a paedophile?".

My first inclination is that it is irrelevant to the discussion, and really isn't anyone else's business, and I thought about editing it.

But I find that Amos-Moses made a cogent reply to it that I think makes a good point relevant to the topic, so I'll leave it in at this time.

You folks have been doing pretty well up to now on a fairly touchy subject, so it would be nice if people would calm themselves a bit and not let the discussion degenerate.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, Second Class

tronvillain · 09-06-2002, 08:27 PM

99Percent:

Quote:

That your idea of "morality" is not really morality at all, but a blatant cop-out.

Yes, we all know your opinions on subjective morality, but do we care? I certainly don't.

Amen-Moses · 09-07-2002, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Michael:
Let's try to be a bit more careful about not calling other posters names. I've edited one comment out.

Yeh, sorry about losing my cool but I really get pissed at people who continue to try and force an issue into a completely different direction rather than actually answer my questions.

To my mind the whole "child porn" thing is a red herring because noone can define either word suficiently for the term to have any meaning.

I read the question as an admission that sexual exploitation amongst adults exists and is at least OK in some cases, otherwise why even specify "child" in the question, why not just ask why sexual exploitation is wrong?

In the UK "hard core" porn is illegal, it just plain doesn't exist in the same way that it does on the US or other countries. "Soft" porn or "Erotica" has such stringent rules applied that it becomes more comedy than titillating.

I grew up in this environment, the "porn" I saw as a child consisted of raiding my mothers collection of Forum mags and my dads naughty nurse magazine (yes singular!). The most formulative part of my sexual education came from Mills and Boon, National Geographic and most importantly my own imagination. When I finally got the chance to see some "real hard core", illegally imported videos from Germany (real perverted stuff!) I laughed my socks off! When I first saw US porn I couldn't believe how tame it was compared to my own imagination, that is why I don't need it, don't watch it and couldn't care less whether it is legal illegal or bloody compulsory viewing!

Hope that clears up a few things.

(oh the rules in the UK for legal "soft" porn: No erect or semi erect male bits, no moist female bits, no depiction of genital contact with anything (although it can be carefully "inferred" say from the position of the bodies but that is at censors discretion). The hottest thing you will see legally in the UK is a nipple kiss!)

Amen-Moses

Ted Hoffman · 09-07-2002, 02:01 AM

Hi, My name is Pawn,
Sexual exploitation is wrong everywhere, regardless, because by definition it is wrong

Well, this thread is questioning why, by definition, it is wrong. Who made that decision that sexual exploitation, by definition, is wrong?
Is our reasoning confined by dictionaries?
The other question is, why is it especially wrong when it is children?
People keep concubines and mistresses for sex. The society frowns at such, but the mistresses and concubines avail themselves for sexual exploitation (usually for something in return).

it just happens that when it comes to children, who are not aware of consequences etc. that porn is almost always exploitation

Being aware of the consequences is one thing. Acting is another thing. Acting and experiencing bad consequences is also another thing. Many adults have made stupid and regrettable mistakes in the area of sex in spite of "awareness" (aah, Monica Lewinsky). Children can be made aware too can't they? What happened to sex-education?

Does sexual exploitation of children have to result in bad consequences?

Consider a billionaire padeophile, he just gets off pictures of naked children but he is so unhappy and miserable because the FBI are watching him and he hasnt seen a photo in two years.
He visits some poor, developing country, say, Sudan or Somali and sees thousands facing imminent death from starvation.
He then talks to the local chief to allow his men to take photos of some naked children (the children of course are unaware), then, after finding the pictures so gratifying and pleasant, he creates a fund for the whole community to get food and construct schools etc in gratitude for bringing back joy to his life.

Just for the photos.

He goes to the next community of starving people and asks to be allowed to take photos. The puritan chief refuses and tells him to take a walk. Thirty people then die of starvation shortly later who would have been saved by the billionaire.

Has the second chief done more harm than good?

Would you rather he keeps his money and lets the people starve to death in the name of being anti-sexual exploitation of children?

Bear in mind four things here (if the pervert is allowed to take the photos):
1. The children and their parents are happy and alive
2. The padeophile is happy
3. Lives are saved
4. Everyone is happy (I dont know about God and tronvillain though)

It may also be worthwhile to consider the sex-maniac billionaire who wants to be given women by the community in return of his huge help in saving the lives of starving people.

I remember there was a time people sacrificed virgin girls to their gods so that their harvests would be good. The family of the women/girls who would be sacrificed felt honoured.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

09-07-2002, 04:10 PM

Exploitation is always wrong. I don't understand whats so hard to grasp? Baseball is always baseball. Can baseball ever not be baseball? No.

If you call it exploitation, it is wrong period. If it wasn't wrong it wouldn't be exploitation. Im surprised you guys have a problem with this concept.

09-06-2002, 01:36 PM	#74
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Originally posted by himynameisPwn: Sexual exploitation is wrong everywhere, regardless, because by definition it is wrong. Why can't you grasp that? Because it is complete bollocks! Just defining something to be wrong does not explain why it is wrong, sexual exploitation is endemic in all societies, plain exploitation even more so. Redefine exploitation and it might not be wrong, but as it was previously defined, ANY and ALL forms of exploitation are ALWAYS wrong by definition. In which case we are effectively all living in immoral societies? Regardless of whether the ends justify the means, exploitation is none the less immoral. Fine, now tell me WHY! In your situation, you've violated the law AAAAARGHHHH, I haven't broken any damn laws in the country in which the acts were committed, why can't you get that through your thick skin and into that mushy grey matter? Let's say you were 19 and newly married to your childhood sweetheart, also 19, and went on holiday to China, would you be pissed off if just as you were in the middle of your passionate embrace the authorities dragged you off for a few years in a Chinese prison for breaking the law? , but morally, I'd say, 16 year olds are(ussually), aware of their sexuality enough that its really not kiddie porn. How about if they LOOK like 12 year olds? However, if the kids were exploited into child porn, its wrong nonetheless as you are promoting exploitation. What fucking kids? These are ADULTS (edited by Moderator to remove ad hominem comment). Porn in and of itself is not exploitation, it just happens that when it comes to children, who are not aware of consequences etc. Shit a fucking brick this is like conversing with a brick wall, I will type this slowly ... N O C H I L D P O R N, if you want to talk about child porn go start a new thread! If however, you said 7 year olds, then thats a bit too much. Not me! I never mentioned any age that wasn't perfectly legal in some country in the world. 7 year olds can't really decide sexually whats in their best interests, what you are insinuating is that it is at the point at which a person becomes able to decide what is in their best interests that they should then be allowed to explore their own sexuality, is that correct? and it would be sexual exploitation no matter what the circumstances. If the parents of the children themselves had taken the pictures, you're still taking advantage of a young child to appease your desires, when the child can't fully understand or know whats going on. t pictures are you referring too? The laws definition of adulthood is what it is not because everyone suddenly becomes an adult at 18, but because by 18 you should be sufficiently experienced and self-aware that you can make your own descisions if you aren't? Just because someone attains some magic age then they are suddenly on their own? Why is the law aset at 18 in the US when the average age of first sexual intercourse (note FULL intercourse not the average age of first starting to explore their sexuality) is 15? Where is the sense in that? Amen-Moses [ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ] [ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

09-07-2002, 02:01 AM	#79
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Hi, My name is Pawn, Sexual exploitation is wrong everywhere, regardless, because by definition it is wrong Well, this thread is questioning why, by definition, it is wrong. Who made that decision that sexual exploitation, by definition, is wrong? Is our reasoning confined by dictionaries? The other question is, why is it especially wrong when it is children? People keep concubines and mistresses for sex. The society frowns at such, but the mistresses and concubines avail themselves for sexual exploitation (usually for something in return). it just happens that when it comes to children, who are not aware of consequences etc. that porn is almost always exploitation Being aware of the consequences is one thing. Acting is another thing. Acting and experiencing bad consequences is also another thing. Many adults have made stupid and regrettable mistakes in the area of sex in spite of "awareness" (aah, Monica Lewinsky). Children can be made aware too can't they? What happened to sex-education? Does sexual exploitation of children have to result in bad consequences? Consider a billionaire padeophile, he just gets off pictures of naked children but he is so unhappy and miserable because the FBI are watching him and he hasnt seen a photo in two years. He visits some poor, developing country, say, Sudan or Somali and sees thousands facing imminent death from starvation. He then talks to the local chief to allow his men to take photos of some naked children (the children of course are unaware), then, after finding the pictures so gratifying and pleasant, he creates a fund for the whole community to get food and construct schools etc in gratitude for bringing back joy to his life. Just for the photos. He goes to the next community of starving people and asks to be allowed to take photos. The puritan chief refuses and tells him to take a walk. Thirty people then die of starvation shortly later who would have been saved by the billionaire. Has the second chief done more harm than good? Would you rather he keeps his money and lets the people starve to death in the name of being anti-sexual exploitation of children? Bear in mind four things here (if the pervert is allowed to take the photos): 1. The children and their parents are happy and alive 2. The padeophile is happy 3. Lives are saved 4. Everyone is happy (I dont know about God and tronvillain though) It may also be worthwhile to consider the sex-maniac billionaire who wants to be given women by the community in return of his huge help in saving the lives of starving people. I remember there was a time people sacrificed virgin girls to their gods so that their harvests would be good. The family of the women/girls who would be sacrificed felt honoured. [ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2002, 03:42 PM	#76
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Let's try to be a bit more careful about not calling other posters names. I've edited one comment out. I'm of two minds about the question to Amos-Moses in re "are you a paedophile?". My first inclination is that it is irrelevant to the discussion, and really isn't anyone else's business, and I thought about editing it. But I find that Amos-Moses made a cogent reply to it that I think makes a good point relevant to the topic, so I'll leave it in at this time. You folks have been doing pretty well up to now on a fairly touchy subject, so it would be nice if people would calm themselves a bit and not let the discussion degenerate. thanks, Michael MF&P Moderator, Second Class

09-07-2002, 04:10 PM	#80
himynameisPwn Guest Posts: n/a	Exploitation is always wrong. I don't understand whats so hard to grasp? Baseball is always baseball. Can baseball ever not be baseball? No. If you call it exploitation, it is wrong period. If it wasn't wrong it wouldn't be exploitation. Im surprised you guys have a problem with this concept.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.