Ted Hoffman

Okay, let me wrap this up since the interest is gone and people are now discussing irrelevant issues.

These are what I have gleaned from this discussion ( from Xixax, faded_Glory, Amos, echidna, the antichris, 99percent, Jerry M, Tom Piper and others) give or take one point include :

1. Sexual use of children is wrong because they are not able to give consent.

2. Children are likely to suffer psychological (emotional) damage and physical harm from the act(s).

3. Children are not able to deal with unwanted instrusion partly because of their dependence on adults and physical strength.

4. A happy society would result if we brought up well-balanced, non-abused children who are allowed to explore sex at the right time. Children who are abused sexually end up damaged psychologically and have dysfunctional relationships.

The reason this discussion has been protracted to this point is because NO ONE has responded directly to my counter-arguments or exposed the error behind them. So I will repeat them for the last time:

MY RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS

• 
  Concerning argument 1:
  (a) It is a double-standard measure to demand that children provide consent for sex - yet the same society mutilates the genitals of children without their consent in the name of circumcision - which has no practical benefits (and before you even get me started on circumcision read the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000430&p=1" target="_blank">The circumcision thread</a> ).
  Many children have died due to overbleeding, and infections resulting from circumcision. Some have lead traumatized lives due to complications arising from incorrect "cuts".
  There is a need to explain why the double standard. It is dishonest to lay down strict controls on one act which is purpotedly damaging, yet sanction other similar acts alongside it.
  
  (b) Society has sanctioned sexual "use" of adults who are not exactly mentally healthy. Schizophrenics, and other mentally unbalanced people do have children and raise them, yet the people that are the putative sexual partners are not questioned whether they got consents. Such partners for example, if accused of murder, would be acquited in a court of law on the grounds of mental disorder/ imbalance.
  
  So, is it okay to have sex with an adult who is not legally qualified to give consent (ie people suffering from mental disorders)?
• About the second "objection", (a)even adults have also been known to suffer psychological harm resulting from unwanted sexual acts.
  Even among consenting adults, if one partner is "rough" physical pain is inflicted on the other partner. Another reason is some adults have small or tight organs and find sex a painfully excruciating excercise and the common solution usually is gentleness. So this physical pain is not inevitable even with children. Those interested in having sex can be gentle and thus eliminate the physical pain.
  
  (b) About pshychological suffering, as I have argued before, its the result of living in a "western" society and sharing a western perspective on child sexuality. 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 withe her baby and husband.
  
  So this psychological suffering is a western reality perpetuated by a western viewpoint.
  The only apparent loss the girl suffers is lack of an education, which is sometimes even unavailable (lack of schools etc - for nomadic pastoralists) or unnecessary in the societal setup.
  
  As Amen Moses argued, those who are known to be psychologically traumatised are the ones that make the news. Many more live with the so-called trauma and get married and move on in obscurity.
  
  The youngest mother known in human history was the peruvian 5 year girl <a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020822/5/ohky.html" target="_blank">Linda Medina</a> in 1939 who lived as a healthy person to her old age. This should say something about human potential and capabilities.
  
  So, the psychological suffering is a conditioned syndrome, not an inborn or natural one. And the western society propagates the abused, suffering, traumatized and unstable victim as the normal image that those who were involved in sex early should adopt.
• About the second objection - that children can not thwart unwanted advances because of their dependence on adults and their being physically weak:
  
  (a) This is a weak reason because there are numerous physically weak adults too and sex with them is not discouraged because they are "defenseless". People marry cripples and people suffering from physical infirmities and have kids with them.
  About being dependent on adults, there are numerous adults who have been "abused" for the same reasons. And at the same time there are kids who have been able to fight-back in cases where the advances are unwanted.
  
  So children have no monopoly over being in powerless and dependent positions. Going by the aforementioned reasoning, we would invalidate sex with wives who are dependent on their husbands and vice versa on the grounds of one partner excercising undue influence on another.
• About the happy society argument (Jerry M?). Jerry M merely advanced the western perception about what constitutes a happy society. This is a non-argument because each individual has his/ her own utopia (including padeophiles and muslim fundamentalists).
  
  "Happy society" is the driving force behind fascism and regimes that are more concerned about the society even than the individual.

I will be happy to receive a strong rebuttal to my arguments. Without that, our collective extreme loathing of any acts that use children sexually is as irrational as racism and other forms of bigotry.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Interesting topic, why don't you start a new thread so we can examine your dichotomy further.

Amen-Moses

faded_Glory

Intensity,

Most of your arguments are straightforward logical fallacies. Pointing out that there are other, legal acts relating to sexuality also involving partners who are not fully capable of giving informed consent (circumcision of babies, sex with mentally handicapped etc) does in no way condone sex with children. Two wrongs do not make one right.

FYI, I am against circumcision done on religious grounds, and can't say I am much convinced by claims that it is medically benificial, let alone necessary. I would not have it done on my son.

I object to anyone attempting to have sex with mentally handicapped who are unable to comprehend what is happening to them - does the word 'rape' mean anything to you?

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. Logical fallacy, pure and simple.

You sound like a motorist caught speeding, saying that speedlimits are irrational because lots of people drive too fast without causing accidents. That is of course not the point. The fact that in many cases sex with children does cause massive emotional damage is what matters, not your counterexamples.

I can give you examples of black people who are not damaged by racism. Is that an argument to say that therefore racism is not immoral, and opposing it is irrational?

You have no arguments.

fG

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]</p>

JerryM

For Intensity:

Your're making the error of begging the question if you imply that all societies morally equal. You're just asserting this to be true without evidence. Not to sound like a "societal chauvinist", but it is demonstrable that some societies are superior to others. History shows us that. Just look at such things as good health, proper nutrition, clean environment, and protection from harm--these are objective "goods"--not mere Western cultural preferences. What kind of society best provides these to all of its members?

And no one has really provided any rebuttal to the principle of autonomy, which states that it is morally wrong for someone to treat another merely as a means to his own ends. I didn't just make this up--it's been around since Kant. IMO, it's still valid ethical maxim. But nobody has to take my word for it. I gave a reference in my OP that discusses autonomy. Another, even more germane article is "A Philosophic Analysis of Sexual Ethics," by Raymond Belliotti, in Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol 10, No. 3 (Sept. 1979), pp. 8-11. You would probably have to order it from a university library, but it's very sound reasoning.

lunachick

Hells belles! I admit I have only skimmed through this thread due to it's length, but I would like to ask you all if any of you remember a Belgian case about 8(?) years ago where a paedophile/child porn ring was busted. The children had been kidnapped, starved, beaten, raped, drugged and when they were of no further use they were bricked into a false wall, still alive (barely) to die. Only one girl (aged 10 - although she had been missing for nearly 2 years) was found alive at the time of the bust. They discovered her almost dead and bricked into the wall surrounded by the bones and decaying flesh of previous victims. And why? So some fucker could make a mint by providing 'images' for someone else to jack off to.
So far in this debate I've seen more concern for the rights of the adult and what should be "freedom of entertainment" over and above the rights of the child to be physically, emotionally, psychologically safe. I work with kids damaged by the physical and emotional effects of incest and rape. They are aged from 4 to 16, both male and female. I think those of you that condone the 'sexualizing' of children need to take a good hard look at your motives. I think you also need to remember that what is done unto children, they will do unto society as adults - and if using, or abusing, children purely for ones own very dodgy gratification then beware the future. We have a case in NZ at the moment where 2 teenage girls murdered a man that picked them up hitchhiking. They are aged 14 & 16. The man who was killed did nothing to them but be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but these girls have a history of sexual "exploitation", and felt no remorse at killing a man. Perhaps we should be teaching kids respect - for themselves, for others, for life in general, rather than simply educating them to be good fucks when we want them to be. Let the good fucking come to them in their own time, not yours.

Amos

Hear-hear, good point lunachick and it is even in the bible. Songs 2:7 "do not arouse love before its owm time." In the spiritual world this would send people to hell and is America's favorite sport and pass time under the name of religion.

"To arouse Love (capital L) before its own time" is to drink of the cup of Gods anger which may just have been pourd full strenght and therefore there will be no rest by day or by nigth (Rev.14:10).

Yes I remember the Belgian case but never heard the end of it. Thanks.

Ted Hoffman

faded Glory
Most of your arguments are straightforward logical fallacies.

Since you say so, they really must be logical fallacies - right?

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. Logical fallacy, pure and simple.

This is a false analogy you have used because there are other factors that predispose people to getting tobacco-related health problems other than the simple act of smoking.
Your argument against sexual exploitation of children assumes any child, anywhere irrespective of genetic make-up, psychological make-up and surrounding culture, will get psychological and emotional problems from being used sexually.

The fact that in many cases sex with children does cause massive emotional damage is what matters, not your counterexamples.


Thank you for sharing your experience.

I can give you examples of black people who are not damaged by racism. Is that an argument to say that therefore racism is not immoral, and opposing it is irrational?

This is another false analogy - racism is an ongoing activity, not something one experiences once or twice in childhood. And you should also know that its a simplistic example you are providing because other factors can come into play when considering such factors as racism.

You have no arguments.

Since you say so, that must be the case, right?

Jerry M
What kind of society best provides these to all of its members?
What? are you saying that a society that provides
good health, proper nutrition, clean environment, and protection from harm to its members is a superior society?

The maasai have all of the above for christs sake!

And no one has really provided any rebuttal to the principle of autonomy, which states that it is morally wrong for someone to treat another merely as a means to his own ends.

According to this principle of autonomy - is it okay for one to hire someone to cook for them?
Or does it become wrong only when one does not pay for the service?

The Other Michael

The MF&P moderators have been discussing the possibilty of closing this thread.

Not, mind you, because of any "sensitivity" problems, but rather because it seems like the discussion is starting to get a bit repetitious.

If anyone has any strong objections, perhaps because they feel that after 10 pages and 225+ posts they still have been unable to make their case, speak up.

You might also consider whether the topics of discussion have changed sufficiently to justify starting new threads for those new topics.

We await your feedback, if any, on the subject, and will probably wait until sometime tomorrow to review said feedback and come to a consensus of how we want to procede.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

atrahasis

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

The Other Michael,
I have never heard of threads being closed for being repetitive, but I have no problem since it seems most people are content to say sexual use of children is wrong without providing any trenchant or unassailable reasons.
No one has bothered to refute my counterarguments because they dont feel they need to provide a rational reason for saying sexual use of children is wrong.
This thread came too early in the development of ethical systems for mankind.

You can close it.