HelenM

Yes, thanks, Intensity. I think I've got it now! That was a very helpful clarification to me.

take care
Helen

MadMordigan

As this thread is about to be closed, I feel I must comment on the tone and course that it has taken.

It seems to me that a couple of posters have taken the devil's advocate position, trying to defend something that we all agree is repulsive, in the attempt to stimulate an exploration of the issues surrounding child exploitation. In return, these posters were demonized and personally attacked. This kind of behaviour is not condusive to discussion, and instead obscure the issues raised.

I understand this is a difficult topic to discuss. Some people here have been victims of very nasty exploitation, and the memories are painful. Maybe we can all just apologize to each other, and give this subject a rest for a bit. Perhaps if it comes up in a couple of months again, we can agree NOT to attack each other for the views discussed.

The Other Michael

Hi MadMordigan,

Actually, we've just been talking about closing it - no decision has been reached.

I do agree with you that the discussion has gotten a bit personal at times, which was one of the factors that made me suggest closing this thread.

If there appears to be interest in continuing calm, rational discussion then there is no big reason to close the thread.

But if it's going to be just spiteful flogging of a dead horse the mods could probably use a break from monitoring this thread to let us keep up with the other discussions going on in the forum.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

Ted Hoffman

Helen

Yes, thanks, Intensity. I think I've got it now! That was a very helpful clarification to me.

You Helen are very welcome.

MadMordigan

Thank you for your concern. I haven't got any direct attacks as such though I have seen some very extreme views here. Its human nature to react with hostility when confronted with questions they would rather not answer, questions that shake views they have held for decades without being questioned - its the fear of having to change to a new viewpoint. But we must realise that it is not enough to say something is unethical, we must have a basis for doing so AS THINKING BEINGS. Otherwise we cannot claim we are moral anymore than one who uses children sexually since its (the loathing of padeophilia) something we just stumbled upon (ie in our nature a knee-jerk reaction), just the same way the padeophile is acting without thought on something that may very well be described as his natural desire - just raw instincts or animal drives for pleasure.

So we would end up hating padeophilia for the same reasons padeophiles like what they do - just raw, unreasoned instincts. That, in my view, would not make us any better than them (padeophiles): Just different.

Me and Amos weren't really defending sexual use of children. We did demonstrate that the reasons people hate sexual exploitation of children are not that rational or unassailable though later (in page 10) I managed to actually get a good reason for declaring sexual exploitation of children a bad thing to engage in or allow.

The Other Michael

But if it's going to be just spiteful flogging of a dead horse the mods could probably use a break from monitoring this thread to let us keep up with the other discussions going on in the forum.

I had no idea this thread kept the Mods awake as their tea got cold. What was the major fear? That people would lose their cool? For christs sake I have seen threads where people get insulted and the thread meanders around the bumpy areas and flows to its final end. Or is it that mods at MF&P are just a little hypersensitive?

For some reason, I find the reaction of the mods very fascinating.

I had no idea you guys take such a restless and uneasy stance on issues like this.

For whatever its worth, I enjoyed it immensely. I wish dk, Vork, Buffman, HRG and Buffman had participated.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Amen-Moses

I wish you'd stop calling me Amos!

Actually I pretty much agree with everything you said in that last post except the bit about wishing dk had been involved! That is one sure way to go wandering of into wild and whacky off topic areas.

One of the things I noticed was the strange analogies that people came up with, like smoking for example. There is an example which we know full well is extremely harmful yet it is not "immoral" or even "wrong" so for anyone arguing that something is wrong due to it being harmful maybe they can ask themselves why that does not stand for all cases?

Another one was speeding, yes speeding is illegal but does that make it wrong or immoral, in fact is speeding itself harmful in any way? The reason that speeding is illegal is because it increases the lethality of any accidents that may occur and accidents by their very definition cannot be predicted so the safest way to protect all road users is to put a limit on the speeds employed by everyone.

Maybe a similar argument could be used for sexual exploitation?

Amen-Moses

Grizzly

Hello Intensity,

Our reactions to this thread are a little sensitive due to previous experiences with pedophilia-related threads here in the past. The topic brings up strong negative emotions in many people and in the past we have had less-than-civil discussions. Also, threads in the upper forum are kept to a higher standard than topics in RRP, for example.

Grizzly

The AntiChris

The original question didn't mention the morality of sexual exploitation, it was about whether we should allow it to happen to children. We don't allow children to smoke, so it's not really such a "strange" analogy.

Chris

lunachick

Intensity:

You say that there have been no reasoned arguments against the sexual exploitation of children, just raw, unreasoned instincts.

Yet, as far as I can see within this thread, the most rational, reasoned arguments against sexual exploitation are there. As Helen has already stated their bodies are not designed for sex, and as such many children suffer much physical pain, that can lead to permanent physical damage, when penetrated by an adult male.
Another poster on the last page also stated the emotional and psychological harm that children suffer, and gave a list of the symptoms of that suffering, which include anything from low self-esteem, to serious drug and alcohol problems, suicide, and many more that I don't have time to go into right now. Some will even grow up to be heartless killers. (For this you can do your own homework on inmates of high security prisons). East or West, the evidence of damage to children through sexual exploitation is there.

I have a problem understanding that the children themselves are not considered reasonable argument.

atrahasis

sorry, wrong post

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Amen Moses

I wish you'd stop calling me Amos!

My profuse apologies Moses. I have done it only once anyway. Sorry.

One of the things I noticed was the strange analogies that people came up with, like smoking for example. There is an example which we know full well is extremely harmful yet it is not "immoral" or even "wrong" so for anyone arguing that something is wrong due to it being harmful maybe they can ask themselves why that does not stand for all cases?

Another one was speeding, yes speeding is illegal but does that make it wrong or immoral, in fact is speeding itself harmful in any way? The reason that speeding is illegal is because it increases the lethality of any accidents that may occur and accidents by their very definition cannot be predicted so the safest way to protect all road users is to put a limit on the speeds employed by everyone.

I couldnt agree more.

Anti Chris

The original question didn't mention the morality of sexual exploitation, it was about whether we should allow it to happen to children. We don't allow children to smoke, so it's not really such a "strange" analogy.

Amos was highlighting the double standards and the falsity of the analogy.

And the question was about the morality (wrongness or rightness) of sexual exploitation of kids.

lunachick

You say that there have been no reasoned arguments against the sexual exploitation of children, just raw, unreasoned instincts.

No, I did not say that. I said in the absence of such reason, we would be basing our morality on raw, unreasoned instincts.

Yet, as far as I can see within this thread, the most rational, reasoned arguments against sexual exploitation are there. As Helen has already stated their bodies are not designed for sex, and as such many children suffer much physical pain, that can lead to permanent physical damage, when penetrated by an adult male.

I did not address Helens arguments because she was half-hearted in her response and partly because I had earlier addressed similar arguments.

Your argument above is as follows.
1. Childrens bodies are not designed for sex.
2. So they suffer physical pain when penetrated by an adult male.
3. Therefore children should not be used for sex.

This is a weak argument because it assumes that only people who do not feel physical pain should have sex.
We have many women with small organs who experience excruciating pain during intercourse. Lubricants and gentleness are suggested in dealing with this. If people got disqualified on the grounds that they feel pain, it would be immoral to have sex with such women.
In a similar manner, gentleness and lubricants can be used when it comes to children.

Concerning childrens bodies not being designed for sex, what are children designed for?

Are adults designed for sex? This teleological argument is weak because it assumes some purpose and a designer with that purpose in mind. You would have to explain why the designer did not design children for sex. And whether it would then be okay to have sex with children if the designer designed them for sex. It also implies that as soon as children are pubescent, they should be used for sex, which I think is wrong because sex can not be limited to bodily ability to participate. They should also be psychologically able to participate in that activity while well aware of the possible consequences and ramifications.

But as far as being designed for sex (or reproduction) goes, I mentioned the example of the Peruvian girl who had a baby when she was five years old. If she wasn't designed for sex what was she doing ovulating at five years? Was nature busy wasting ova on someone who is not designed for sex?

Many girls start menstruating even before their teens and this goes against your teleological argument.

Is it immoral to use our noses to hold glasses because our noses were not designed to hold up spectacles?

Another poster on the last page also stated the emotional and psychological harm that children suffer, and gave a list of the symptoms of that suffering

This emotional and psychological harm suffered by such people is a syndrome that is an artifact of the (western) societys perception on sexual use of children. Not a necessary consequence.

I gave numerous examples of girls who get married at as young as 11 years and they mature to be strong able mothers who competently manage their families.

I have a problem understanding that the children themselves are not considered reasonable argument.

What do you mean by "children themselves"? Formulate a coherent argument and I will address it.

If you have any other arguments, bring them and I will take them apart with ease.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>