tronvillain

Intensity:
What exactly were you expecting? Emotions are an integral part of the decision making process, and threats are a useful tool in moderating behavior.

What I actually said was "it is wrong because it bothers me." Why does it bother me? Well, primarily because of the empathy I feel for those being exploited. Isn't that why it bothers you?

tronvillain

Intensity:
No, I don't think that is the answer - I love sex and hope my future children do too. I would never see a daughter as "as sullied, someone who has partaken an evil act, damaged goods, even a whore." Of course, I have never been overly attached to concepts like "purity" or "innocence."

Amos

Yes, no objection and Canada was the first to sign the "Treaty of Versailles" that allowed him to go to war.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Children do not have the full rights we enjoy as adults. We do not allow children to vote, drive cars, fight in wars, have the same range of employment opportunities (or work the same number of hours, as adults), smoke, drink, have sex, etc.

Children (by definition) are not mentally capable or experienced enough to be responsible for the choices they make--regardless of how they might choose as adults. (Being 'responsible' doesn't mean one will choose properly; it only means that whatever one chooses, one was able to know what one was doing. Whether one actually does, is another matter.)

So, we prevent children from engaging in activities that might permanently damage them, until they are old enough to choose for themselves to engage in, and accept the consequences of, certain behaviour.

If an adult wishes to risk lung disease by taking up smoking, we allow it. If an adult wishes to engage in risky sexual behaviour, we (grudgingly) allow it. If an adult wishes to drink to excess, we allow it (though we try to prevent that action from adversely harming others).

This has absolutely nothing to do with God, subjective societal 'mores'. Instead, it has everything to do with making sure that children are prepared for adulthood--without being damaged before they get there.

Sexual behaviour can have tremendous physical, emotional, and mental consequences. Pregnancy, STDs, birth defects and/or physical damage (or death) to the mother and/or child, etc., can all result from sex.

Again, children--by definiton--do not know enough to be able to weigh the pros and cons of certain activities.

Until they are, it is right to prevent children from engaging in those activities--whether it is by the child's 'choice'--or from coercion.

Keith.

echidna

Not entirely. The concept of a “thought crime” is obviously impractical in a direct sense, but realistically we live in a world where control over our thoughts is regulated. As a mild comparison, I support restrictions on cigarette and alcohol advertising, especially to minors. Yes, it’s a non-ideal loss of freedom, but pragmatically it results in an end which I support.

Further, while criminalizing a thought is more abstract than anything, criminalizing the action is something we are more familiar with. We are already surrounded by restrictions placed on thought stimuli which can prompt criminal actions.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

echidna

No, I must have missed that thread. Let me exchange some examples of my own :
1. The Akha is an animist Indochinese hilltribe. They consider the birth of twins to be a bad omen & as such they are killed on birth.
2. Most tribal groups in Borneo, Papua New Guinea used to conduct headhunting and revenge killing as long-standing cultural, social and ritual practices. Aside from extremely poorly conducted assimilation of many other western ideas, the last century have also seen the gradual reduction in these practices.
3. In Australia, there is a practice amongst a few Aboriginal groups where women found to have committed adultery are punished with a fire-stick, their genitals are brutalised with a burning branch. There is a sense of indignation that to criticise this practice makes one is culturally insensitive and a racist.
4. Treatment of women under Islamic Shar’iah Law, enough said.

While I value culture greatly, there are some things which transcend culture. Human being first (male or female), then Aboriginal, not the other way around. There is sufficient common ground to know we all feel pain in the same ways. If you feel that they are Aboriginal first, I’d be interested to hear your reasoning.

Now you can refer to these cultural differences as “silly” if you want, but as you loosely pointed out earlier, we live in a world where each individual will exert their sense of morality on the world. Those with the greater numbers and better guns will ultimately enforce their morality. Coincidentally or otherwise, these people historically have also given rise to modern humanism.

Yes, I empathise with a woman whose clitoris has been burnt off and scarred beyond existence, or a baby who is killed, or a family who has lost loved ones from generations of revenge killing.

And I will support changes which will seek to remove these unnecessary atrocities. Would I advocate the use of violence to effectively stop this ? Yes.

You are suggesting that I should not ? You are suggesting that I should mind my own business & allow nature to take its course ? Moral nihilism and apathy ?

I sense that the recognised tragedies of moral objectivism have now swung the pendulum to the other extreme, that morality is now a dirty word, that we should now just shrug our shoulders and say “well my opinion is worthless”. Where we’re tipping our bathwater is marked by a pile of babies.

echidna

You seem to be jumping around a little on this topic, maybe this question should have come much earlier.

From dictionary.com, paedophilia : The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

This would encompass both the “classical” view of the paedophile, as well as the cultural examples you raise. Now bearing in mind that the word is very heavily loaded in a negative sense, I would suggest that our negative sense comes from the implication that the adult’s motivation is for self-sexual-gratification.

Let’s start with the classic view, the adult male brought up under a western culture who “gets off” on watching naked children, and seduces them to have sex with them. Do I really need to explain what problems this can create ?

Now, you raise 2 examples of alternative cultures which have quite different cultural practices when it comes to children and sexuality.

I would suggest that in each example (if accurately portrayed !!!, I not read any literature on this at all), the adult motivation is educational not sexual, quite different. Not all acts involving sex are necessarily sexual in nature, witness rape which is primarily perceived as an act of violence and control although in a sexual context.

Do you suggest that members of NAMBLA share this sole motivation as paedophilia as an altruistic act ? I utterly reject this possibility.

Now, that said, what does one do with the cultures which practice this ? Cultural pragmatism. 2 such conflicting cultures are simply incompatible, both from an outsiders perspective as well as an insiders. There is an element of male psychology which is not safe to operate in the complete freedom of children’s sexuality. I do not advocate that NAMBLA should be able to use "sexual altruism" as an alibi to justify their abuse, the same as I do not advocate that the islanders should be able to use NAMBLA to justify personal sexual gratification using children.

Unfortunate ? Maybe, maybe not. Are the people of Borneo worse off for losing headhunting ? I don’t believe so, and on anthropological reports, neither do they, only some of the elders are a little nostalgic. Personally I have no remorse for losing slavery as a cultural relic either.

As such I maintain that the practice needs to be altered, all be it in a culturally sensitive way, far from easy I acknowledge, but possible.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

The AntiChris

You're still dodging the issue. Why do you feel empathy? Your empathy suggests that you perceive suffering on the part of the children concerned (either actual or potential). I suspect that what Intensity is looking for is a description of this perceived suffering.

Are all these necessarily inevitable consequences of "child" sex or are they excuses we use to bolster our own prejudices? I ask because these look very similar to the kinds of excuses some theists use to condemn premarital sex.

The term "sexual exploitation" is so vague that it's hardly surprising you've failed to generate any "cogent reasons".

So you want to know why something defined as "unethical" is ethically wrong? Not exactly helpful.

Chris

echidna

Forgive me if I genuinely considered the question beyond debate. If that makes me some kind of bigot … well … tough.

Is your question rhetorical ? Are you simply testing the forum against your own opinion ? I find it very hard to believe that a grown adult genuinely has no opinion on this subject.

But to answer anyway, it really it depends on what you accept as a moral basis for wrongness. There are many different versions which dozens of previous threads have dealt with.

To date the thread seems to have been more about specific scenarios rather than the essential wrongness itself, which you are correct, I take as a given. Is there anything specific to paedophilia which presents different problems posed by the questions ? :

Is it wrong to inflict pain (either mental or physical) for pleasure ?
Should children be guided towards healthy maturity ?
Should children’s freedom be curtailed on occasion by a loving parent in their best longterm interests ?

Maybe I can attempt an answer which you will find satisfactory if you could provide answers to these questions.

Of course, should some of your crucial presuppositions vary from mine, there is every likelihood that I will be unable to prove it to your satisfaction.

echidna

Pardon me if I butt in.

The perceived suffering is in the countless interviews with adults who claim trauma from childhood sexual abuse.
The perceived suffering is in the clinical studies which strongly associate psychological scarring on sufferers of childhood sexual abuse.

Now, maybe you will argue that all you then need to do is find asexually abused adult who grew up without emotional scars. This still doesn’t justify the act. Quite apart from the vicious physical abuse often associated with paedophilia, there is the well-known risk that even consensual paedophilia (if indeed the term "consensual" can even be used with respect to children") is a cause of adult emotional trauma.

With this known risk, there is no way that an adult can consider the act, anything other than a selfish act of sexual self-gratification. To knowingly jeopardise the psychological future of a child just for personal gratification ? OK, what is your next question as to why that is immoral ?

Except that there are also strong reasons to justify merits in pre-marital sex. Feel free to start another thread on this if you want. Please explain the merits in paedophilia.

Also that an act between consenting adults is far different to one where a child is concerned, for 2 reasons. Firstly that negative psychological influences are more likely to have far-reaching consequences in a child than an adult, secondly that children are not as well equipped to deal with the complex issues of relationships and sex.

Yes, I completely agree.

Let’s break down what some people seem to see as a complex issue. Can you please answer the following :
Is it ethical to harm people (physically or emotionally) for self-gratification ?
Are children as mentally equipped as adults to deal with issues of family, relationships and sexuality ?

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>