Vesica

I think this whole debate gets at deeper questions....
1)Who are children? individuals between the ages of 0-18?
2) Do these 'children' have any say in thier own destinies? When and under what circumstances?
3) What are the legal rights of child in relation to family/school/adults etc.?

This question produces such a gut level response that I think many are uncomfortable dealing with the fact that there are so many acts we consider 'wrong' today that were not even defined for most of human existance. We also forget that 'childhood' as we now view it is a social construction, and a recent one at that. Industrial Europe recognized no childhood.
Ancient Greece and Rome recognized no sanctity of virginity or childhood...

We need to understand why these issues provoke such response within ourselves....and understand that we as a society are still struggling to define and deliniate issues that are relatively new in the history of human civilization...

Pomp

99Percent,

Morally, this is a completely meaningless statement. There is no way I can reasonably act morally if the only way to know what "bothers" you or anyone else is if you or someone "actively prevents" my "immoral acts" which ultimately means using violence or threat of force.

I don't see why not. It boils down to saying that an act is "immoral" if and only if it bothers other moral agents to the degree that they are willing to take measures to prevent it from being done (or, in slightly different terms, if contracting agents would agree that an act is to be prohibited).

To address the current question, then, child exploitation would be immoral simply because most people have a fairly large degree of empathy for children and are willing to take action to prevent their exploitation.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Pomp ]</p>

Infinity Lover

I guess the number two option could also be investigating whether we're dealing with a mental disorder. It's certainly a phenomenon that requires investigating.

(Personally, I think pedofiles psychologicly stepped beyond a point of no return. First harbouring the thoughts, noticing how those have no consequences in themselves. Next elaborating on those thoughts, eventually leading to an obsession, and finaly acting according to those thoughts.)

tronvillain

99Percent:
If you are not sufficiently bothered by the exploitation of children to refrain from exploiting them, then I must resort to threats of force, and ultimately force itself. So what?

tronvillain

Intensity:
Do you even remember being seven years old? I doubt very much that any child in grade two would consider themselves blessed to be touched sexually by a thirty-eight year old. What the hell is wrong with you?

ybnormal

Regarding those memories of early sexuality-

I think there are three basic types of people in that regard:

Those who have little or no real memories of their early sexual self, which of course has little or no lasting effect on them;

those who have horrible and guilty memories of their early sexual self, from which they endlessly attempt to escape;

and those who have thrilling and vivid memories of their early sexual self, which they compulsively imitate and relive throughout the remainder of their lives.

Ted Hoffman

tronvillain,
I could ask you the same question. I can remember my attitute towards sex when I was seven. If you cannot, sorry. How long ago is it for you - maybe the time-gap is insurmountable for you? for me its 19 years ago.

Maybe I wasn't getting enough parental love? I don't know, but thats another matter altogether.

What is the basis of your doubt? personal abhorrence? misplaced pain? You know what every child in grade two thinks? You have studied children all your life? You know how all children in grade two are brought up?

You can be puritan, thats fine. Just know people differ.

So that is how Osama thought: only about himself.
To be moral largely has to do with doing what is good for others too. The exact opposite of morality is selfishness.

Tom Piper

tronvillain said, Right on!

If you don't know what is wrong with this, I can't explain it to you. While were at it, if you (or anyone else) engage(s) in same-sex sexual activity we will beat the inclination out of you; same goes for black-white marriages. And if you are a woman and you want to take a man's job, we will beat that out of you also.

Tom Piper

Divide et Impera

99Percent:

Morally, this is a completely meaningless statement.

But if I can buy an exploited African child for $14.75, may as well make a profit with my investment -- right?

Vesica

About the being a child of age 7 statement:

This brings up a pertinent point...When are children allowed to be sexual beings in thier own right? Age 7? Age 12? Age 16?

Legally, we have proclaimed this age to be 18....The question is 'Is it possible for a 7 year old to engaging in consenual sex? Is this age far to young to make those kinds of decisions about one's own body?' And by legalizing the bodies of children are we not enslaving them in a different way? We have ruled out the possibility of pre-legal sexuality and made it an taboo subject to be silenced in school education but this idea that children suddenly become sexual at 18 or 16 or whenever is not supported developmentally or historically...I pose the question 'Why is it right to own/control children's bodies and 'protect' them by refusing to acknowlege any sort of sexual development until age 18? When are children old enough to 'own' thier bodies??'