Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amen-Moses · 09-11-2002, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JerryM:
Briefly, re. a "happy society." I use this as an umbrella phrase for a well-functioning society. Human beings, for the most part, can only survive in a social structure. That's due to natural selection. We can identify objective characteristics of a society in which human beings thrive: good health, safety and protection from harm, companionship, family, love (that's kinda subjective, but I'll list it anyway), productive work, mental stimulation. You can come up with others. A society that provides this will be a happy society. So I use that term to identify a society where human beings achieve their greatest survival success. In what kind of society would you want to live?

Bonobo's are equally social creatures, indeed they are our closest relatives.

Bonobo's are happy (as far as we can ascertain).

Bonobo's have no sexual taboos whatsoever!

What was your point again?

Amen-Moses

Infinity Lover · 09-11-2002, 01:29 PM

Having some moral concept in your mind is one thing...
but...
Perhaps a more practical solution might be order here. If you want a concrete answer that is.

Ask the target audience.
(Yes I'm being sarcastic here)

Place an advertisment.

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.

The AntiChris · 09-11-2002, 01:35 PM

Intensity

Quote:

echidna: As I stated much earlier, you can debate age-of-consent in another topic if you want. It’s generally around 17 give or take a few years & given the lack of exactness, I tend to agree with this region. If you’d like to lower that to 5, I’d want to see your reasons first.

Intensity: This is irrelevant we know who children are.

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?

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.

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.

Chris

Amen-Moses · 09-11-2002, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Infinity Lover:
Place an advertisment.

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.

I could predict the outcome easily enough:

Boys aged 5-9: Eh?
Boys aged 10-16: Yes please!

Girls aged 5-9: Eh?
Girls aged 10-16: Maybe, if you pay me enough and make sure I can't get pregnant or catch some nasty disease.

Oh and yes I am being sarcastic too! There is a little grey area on the ages.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses · 09-11-2002, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris:
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.

This could be the problem here, I am reading sexual exploitation as ANY act that exploits the SEX of a person. IOW I am not limiting it to "40 year old pervert fingering 5 year old girl" which seems to be tho only thing that some people can think of but also to "advertising exec' choosing 7 year old girl for advert because A) she is female and B) she is pretty" or "Parent entering 9 year old into beauty pageant" or "I'm gonna put my children on a web page 'cause I think they are damned attractive". To me all these qualify as exploitatioon and depending on your definition of "sexual" could qualify in that respect too.

As I said earlier the question actually indicates that some level of sexual exploitation of adults is acceptable (I can recall many conversations with womens libbers at this point) otherwise why specify "children" in the question? So if it is OK to put a topless 16 year old on page 3 of the Sun rag why is it not OK to put a topless 15 year old there?

Amen-Moses

echidna · 09-11-2002, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
By your reasoning, parenting is teaching children on things that are totally unrelated to sex.

Refer my comment about sex education.

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
There is no international consensus.
What we have is western "consensus" based on "western" societies and western studies which are based on "western" education, and western perspective being peddled as international consensus.

No, thank you.

As Amen Moses said the studies start with the premise "People who were "abused" sexually during childhood lead miserable lives". Once the "victim" status has been foisted upon subjects, they then proceed to play the roles they have been assigned. Simple emotions are ripped out and overblown to portray disturbed, helpless and sexually dysfictional, emotionally unstable individuals.

And the idea gets reinforced.

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.

Presumably you also therefore reject rape, slavery, etc etc as things which are wrong as well. Yep, IMO that�s entirely sufficient to justify the use of violence to protect society, hell any society AFAIC.

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
I asked: What code of ethics are you referring to?

echidna responded: Yours.

Huh,huh I have none.

Maybe you should have included that in your OP. Well, that kinda shortens the conversation dramatically. My jelly on the wall analogy would appear to be accurate. As I said earlier, without some degree of common ground (even loose agreement on altruism, compassion & integrity as general positives for instance), different base presuppositions will ultimately lead to violently conflicting moral systems.

How would you suggest that the conversation proceed ? Personally I don�t know.

Amen-Moses · 09-11-2002, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
Amen Moses - I compliment you for having answered echidnas questions so competently.

Thank you.

I have been debating this issue on many boards for many years and have grown quite a thick skin in the process but have yet to see a rational answer.

Maybe if someone can show me that Bonobo's are "unhappy" with their culture we might get somewhere but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting!

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses · 09-11-2002, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:
I see, you both reject all western data on this.

Strangely enough the "data" I mentioned earlier was from Holland, does that not qualify as "western" enough?

Amen-Moses

echidna · 09-11-2002, 04:49 PM

Amen-Moses, your position is plain and I think I understand your point of view quite clearly .

AFAIC we have nothing further to discuss.

Linda · 09-11-2002, 07:16 PM

Sexual activity is something that should occur between two consenting people. That statement certainly assumes that each party is capable of consent. 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. Any sexual act between an adult and a child has the consent of only one person.....the adult. That is why sex between an adult and a child is immoral...and illegal. It is the balance of power between the two people that is out of whack. Adult + child is a situation wherein intimidation is always present due to the imbalance of power between the two. 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.

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

09-11-2002, 01:29 PM	#152
Infinity Lover Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,047	Having some moral concept in your mind is one thing... but... Perhaps a more practical solution might be order here. If you want a concrete answer that is. Ask the target audience. (Yes I'm being sarcastic here) Place an advertisment. 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.

09-11-2002, 04:49 PM	#159
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Amen-Moses, your position is plain and I think I understand your point of view quite clearly . AFAIC we have nothing further to discuss.

09-11-2002, 07:16 PM	#160
Linda Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Indiana Posts: 932	Sexual activity is something that should occur between two consenting people. That statement certainly assumes that each party is capable of consent. 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. Any sexual act between an adult and a child has the consent of only one person.....the adult. That is why sex between an adult and a child is immoral...and illegal. It is the balance of power between the two people that is out of whack. Adult + child is a situation wherein intimidation is always present due to the imbalance of power between the two. 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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.