Xixax

So, if I understand you correctly:

Children would be just fine with being sexually exploited if it wasn't for our Western Culture training them to feel victimized by it. Therefore, since no emotional harm is really being done by the adult using the child, there seems to be no real moral issue with doing so.

That's a summary of what I take from your response, it's definitely not all inclusive, but the impression left. There are problems with this argument.

Western Culture is not the 'only' culture in which the sexual use of CHILDREN is considered wrong. In fact, what seems to change from culture to culture is the definition of a child. Because people mature at different ages, I'm not sure anyone here has placed a certain 'age' on it. Instead, there are a list of criteria we all use when interacting with someone to determine whether or not they are children.

It's fairly universal that children are not to be sexually exploited by adults.

And although you state that it's not just a simple matter of the capability to give consent, that doesn't mean it isn't. It -is- the main issue. They are not capable of providing consent to an act they don't understand. Would you advocate allowing them to enter into long term binding legal contracts of servitude? Do you realize how many 'children' would offer years of work for something like a Nintendo or a Gameboy?

Their ability to appreciate and understand the value of actions and property is not yet developed enough to make decisions on sexuality. Because of this, it is the adults responsibility to seek out sexual partners who are capable of such.

Can we at least agree that children cannot give sexual consent, and that without consent it's wrong to be with them sexually? We can worry about the definition of what a child is later.

Ted Hoffman

Xixax

Western Culture is not the 'only' culture in which the sexual use of CHILDREN is considered wrong.

This is true. The problem with western culture is that it has spread its influence all over and even the cultures that hitherto had no contact with it have been touched by its influence and education.

Governments the world over have adopted "western" education and this western culture is found almost everywhere.

But the more important question which is "why does western culture consider sexual use of children wrong" is answered with western answers which interpret things using a western mindset. A girl who would otherwise not be emotionally and psychologically dysfunctional as a result of being used sexually while still young learns that indeed they should be scarred by the experience.

So the suffering and pain is developed

HelenM

Just a quick comment on this: perhaps it is more that all girls everywhere experience pain and suffering when they are subject to sexual acts their bodies are not ready for, yet.

However, perhaps it is only in Western societies that women are able to speak up about it. Maybe elsewhere they are taught that pain and suffering is normative for them; that sex is about the pleasure of the man and not theirs; that their lot in life is to put up and shut up.

Isn't this a possible reason why other cultures 'seem' not to have a problem over what is not considered at all ok in Western cultures?

Helen

brighid

Their ignorance has been lifted and that is why they are harmed. They realize that not every girl is married to a man 10,20 and 30 years her senior (at age 11) and gives birth to children at age 12. But that girls her age in different countries are allowed to be educated, to CHOOSE their husbands and wait until they are mentally, emotionally and physically mature to be a mother and a wife. That females in other countries don’t under go painful and life threatening and permanently disabling genital mutilation, and lead lives without constant pain …

Just as the veil of ignorance is lifted from the eyes of the theist when the best light of reason finally penetrates their “blind faith” and they realize they have been living a lie, that things can and are better, so is the same in countries that teach their females that it is acceptable to marry their 9 year old daughters to 50 year old men, that it is their duty to be no more then wife and mother to a man she has never met, who is old enough to be her father and given no choice, and treated as no more then a familial possession that can do little without the consent of her father, husband or male family member.

It is only in their ignorance that things can and are different that they aren’t poignantly aware that they are harmed. That is why in some countries, religions and cultures women aren’t allowed to be educated, own property, divorce, or otherwise have the opportunity to discover the vast world of opportunities available beyond the narrow borders of their restricted world – because then they would know … they would know the possibilities and possibly rise up and seek change … change that might upset the power structure, even if those changes will bring happiness, prosperity, wealth, progress and a future to their community that involves equality. And we all know how those repressive power structures embrace change … not very well.

The suffering and pain was always there, below the surface at some deeply seeded subconscious level but in order to survive it had to be repressed, and once a woman finds herself in a safe environment, able to explore those feelings then the pain comes to the surface and is allowed the expression her soul has yearned to set free. So, don’t think that because women don’t speak their displeasure, or for the purposes of their own self-preservation they remain silent and therefore no pain and suffering exist.

Finally - USING someone for selfish purposes, whether man, woman or child is WRONG.

Brighid

Amos

Kind of but I think he's just bragging.

lunachick

YAY for Brighid!!!

Thank you.

Amos

Spit it out lunachick for it is the kind of poison that will make hair grow on your chest.

Ted Hoffman

Helen wrote: Isn't this a possible reason why other cultures 'seem' not to have a problem over what is not considered at all ok in Western cultures?

It is a possible reason. They could also argue that its because of western superstition that people leading western lifestyles think that sexual use of children damages them sexually and psychologically.

brighid said: Their ignorance has been lifted and that is why they are harmed. They realize that not every girl is married to a man 10,20 and 30 years her senior (at age 11) and gives birth to children at age 12. But that girls her age in different countries are allowed to be educated, to CHOOSE their husbands and wait until they are mentally, emotionally and physically mature to be a mother and a wife. That females in other countries don’t under go painful and life threatening and permanently disabling genital mutilation, and lead lives without constant pain …

You might say their ignorance is lifted, but what actually happens is that they are sold the western lifestyle, which is overrall a very good one. One of its weaknesses however is its extreme and irrational phobia for sexual use of children over other equally bad things that they sanction. So much that the idea that sex with children damages them psychologically has been fostered in their education system and societal perspective. It is an idea that their social scientists have set out to prove and have done so and its also backed by psychological studies shaped by a western mindset. As the group psychology gets indoctrinated, empathy and sympathy are shaped according to what is proscribed and we have a (western) "morality".

What is important at the end of the day is that it is NOT in intrinsic in the human psyche or human nature that one be psychologically traumatized and emotonally damaged for being used sexually early in their life: its a conditioned response.

That is my point.

brighid said: The suffering and pain was always there, below the surface at some deeply seeded subconscious level but in order to survive it had to be repressed, and once a woman finds herself in a safe environment, able to explore those feelings then the pain comes to the surface and is allowed the expression her soul has yearned to set free. So, don’t think that because women don’t speak their displeasure, or for the purposes of their own self-preservation they remain silent and therefore no pain and suffering exist.

Suffering and pain IS always there, whether one was abused sexually or NOT. Unless one leads a childhood surrounded by angels for children and angels for parents and angels for their siblings.

And it is also debatable how much it helps to dig up old memories in the name of "freeing up" someone. It is not always the case that people in dysfunctional relationshipd have not been freed of this or that pain. It could be the placebo effect working when people claim they have "recovered" because of the therapy. I can even argue that its against nature (upsetting adaptive conditions) to turn over the piles and piles of info stored in ones memory in the name of seeking some reason for ones current psychological problems.

The problem with the western perspective to psychosexual problems is that all the buried sorrows and pain are raked up from the subconscious and memories of people and given a sexual dimension (maybe Freud should be thanked for this?) All the pains are conflated together and provided with sexual natures and origins. If one genuinely cannot remember any sexual incident in their childhood, its said their subconscious is blocking the memory. Regressive hypnosis can then be applied which then relies on confused recollections to put up the image a shrink is interested in coming up with.

As far as I am concerned, all pain is bad, whether sexual or emotional or physical. And all pain can negatively affect our future lives as adults. But it is misleading to say sexual use (alone) will automatically result in future emotional and psychological trauma and to promote the image that the child who has been used sexually is exceptionally damaged emotionally and psychologically and is liable to end up as a mental case.

It is incorrect to promote the suffering as a normal human reaction and not admit its a conditioned and ideological reaction.

brighid said: Finally - USING someone for selfish purposes, whether man, woman or child is WRONG.

I wish I could see this same spirit when it comes to circumcision.

In any case, when one calls the plumber to fix their drainage system, is one using the plumber then for selfish or selfless reasons? Or is it alright because we pay them for the service they provide?

I think the argument above is weak because as humans, we can't have everything or do everything for ourselves so we will have to use each other one way or the other. It is a simple fact of life.

Now how we get others to do those selfish things we need them to do for us and at what cost to themselves is another matter altogether.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

HelenM

And the men who have all the power, probably do...

If the young women do it's probably because they're scared to say anything else...

Intensity when you write such things it simply shows how little you know about Western counseling. This is a very inaccurate stereotype. Please do some reading and find out more about Western counseling and therapy so you understand all of what's out there. Only a portion of it is Freudian and all good therapists understand the importance of not leading someone into creating memories. And the goal is to help the person live their life now, not 'how many interesting memories can we find?'

I'm glad you said that.

People have an incredible ability to survive. But I believe that sexual abuse is particularly traumatic because it's so 'invasive' to mess with someone's body in an intimate way. And it's so confusing when someone does something wrong that feels good...it causes extreme guilt to the person and an inability to separate what is right and wrong and to feel ok about what is ok, in future. It can mess up their most intimate relationships for the rest of their life. It's a serious thing.

I disagree and so do most people here, evidently.

You sound like an advocate of things in other cultures that most posters here abhor.

You would if it was equally traumatic and had equal future effects.

Consent has been a key issue all along. You are using the word 'use' in a neutral sense but brighid was meaning 'exploit' when she wrote 'use'. So this is last part of your post is simply a disagreement over word use, not over concepts. I'm sure brighid thinks it's fine to pay people for services when they freely consent to provide them for the price you're willing to pay.

take care
Helen

The AntiChris

Intensity

This seems, to me at least, a particularly odd interpretation of moral judgement. You clearly weren't completely satisfied with it, because you added the following:

I'm not sure if you mean that illogicality stands on its own as "wrong", or only when it's combined with the creation of "emotional stress", or are you saying it's more wrong when combined with "emotional stress"?

Anyway, this thread is primarily about sexual exploitation and I'm certainly no moral philosopher!

This argument annoys me when it's used merely as a device to lend a veneer of authority to an opposing viewpoint.

If you were to able to persuade the majority of people that their fear of the sexual use of their children was unjustified, to such an extent that laws were changed and we did start 'using' children sexually as a matter of course, this wouldn't be "might makes right morality"? Would it depend on whether the children actually did or did not suffer?

I find it odd that you appear to be quite happy to say that paedophiles are wrong to use children sexually solely on the assumption that paedophiles must share (in your opinion) an irrational desire (they don't want their own children used) with the rest of society!

As to the answer to Q2, you know the answer (unless you genuinely believe that you've successfully demolished all the arguments!).

Quite clearly it's generally believed that sex with adults is, or might be, harmful to children. The mere fact that you stipulated a lower age limit (8) suggests that even you acknowledge that there may be an element of risk.

You're arguing that any apparent harm to children is either the result of western societal indoctrination or because the 'sexual use' in question is not within the bounds of what you consider "normal" sexual exploitation (whatever that might be).

Whilst I don't doubt that western societal attitudes to sexuality do play a significant role in contributing to the creation of 'victims' (by engendering guilt and shame), I am equally certain that they cannot account for all the physical and mental distress undoubtedly suffered by at least some young children when used sexually by adults.

I think you could certainly make a case for lowering the age of consent but nothing you've said convinces me that young children should be exposed to the potential risks of abuse.

Chris