Ted Hoffman

How you respond would help me decide on how to handle you. It would be possible you are making a horrible joke, or it could be the start of a story you are about to tell me. Or you could be a crazy chap who has escaped the madhouse etc

So, you respond first and then we can see from there whether I should call the cops. Or invite you in for a serious conversation.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Xixax

Amen, yes, you would either

A) Find another partner with whom to have sexual intercourse ( if the wife is mentally disabled to a point where she is unable to give consent, it's doubtful she would be able to feel 'betrayed' or
even comprehend what is happening.

B) Remain celibate.

Raping her is not an option. The fact you made the ridiculous jump to asking for 'signed consent forms' doesn't help determine an answer for you or anyone else.

If you want to take a great deal of time, we can work on a definition of 'child'. However, I personally find it unnecessary, since I am able to recognize those traits instinctively enough to stay on the safe side of determining who is a child and who is not. Perhaps if you lack such instincts on your own ( or someone else, this isn't intended to be pointed at you directly, as I have no clue to the 'true' motives behind your questioning ), it would be helpful to develop such definitions.

You asked how a child would develop those instincts without interaction: Genetics. Some behavior -is- carried in our genes. Sexual reproduction is one of them. The fact that we, as apes with superior intellect, are able to assign an artistic and intensely emotion experience to sexual acts does not mean that the underlying behavior is not there genetically.

You seem to just be wanting to get at the 'why' behind our abhoration of exploiting children sexually. I think it definitely evolved as a social construct, not a genetic distaste for it. I don't think the answer you're looking for will be found by amatuers on this board.

I am personally content in this instance in stating flatly: The potential for emotional damage to the child is enough to keep this behavior from being either legal -or- accepted.

The question of why the child would be emotionally troubled by it is irrelevant unless someday it could be proven that the child would in no way suffer emotional harm from it ( in this case the test itself would be unethical to begin with, much like testing drugs on newborn babies ). Again, this isn't something like discipline, where there are adverse effects to the child if they are not disciplined, regardless of potential problems arising FROM the discipline itself. This is a completely different issue, where there is NO necessity for the sexual use of children. It provides no reproductive capacity, and the child suffers no ill effects by not being exploited.

If the subject just happens to interest you, that's fine. Perhaps you could lead a study on children who have been sexually exploited and determine whether or not they are capable of functioning in a relationship in a way that is healthy. I think asking on an internet message forum "Why is sexual exploitation of children wrong?" is flammatory, and will probably not help anyone reach any conclusion they do not already have.

faded_Glory

Well, I think several answers have been given already by many in this thread. Emotional damage of a vulnerable youngster inflicted by an older person in a position of power being the obvious one. Amen-Moses may argue that this may not always and everywhere be a consequence, but I don't think anyone can deny that it most certainly is an oft-seen consequence in Western societies where the taboo on the subject has been sufficiently eroded for those affected to come out and share their experiences.

That should be reason enough for a rational position. Dragging out the discussion any further seems pointless and yes, invites suspicion that other motives may be at play beyond 'academic curiosity'.

And you still haven't explained to us your own reasons for feeling 'loathing for paedophiles'. I am still interested to hear them (as well as Amen-Moses's ones).

fG

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]</p>

Mad Kally

Another good post Amos. I missed you too. Maybe I'll join up with whatever your group is someday.

Jane Bovary

I've gotta agree with Amos there too...I love our "philosophical bullshit".

Without it we wouldn't be having this, or any other discussion.

Amos

We'd love to have you Kelly, but there will be no vines in the bedrooms, just curtains and a chandelier.

Amos

As a matter of fact Jane, we must colour our own heaven while on earth and nobody else will do it for us.

Amos

I have no problem with apes or even fish because I think it is a great God who can make me out of a fish or an ape. The fact is that you can't seem to accept our animal nature as our first nature and must be convinced by the animals before you believe it to be true.

I've always maintained that we are the animal man first and our human nature is second to us.

99Percent

Why is that?

Amen-Moses

I would object. As to why, two reasons. One a purely emotional response (which I would have regardless of age, hell I'm 39 and my mother still objects to any women I date!) based upon being a parent and also because it is illegal and I wouldn't want my children dragged through legal proceedings.

Now if it is illegal purely because of that emotional response then that is the end of this discussion (at least as far as actual physical sex acts are concerned) because we then have an answer to the limited question.

We might like to get back to the original topic of course which is much wider.

Amen-Moses