Why is Pedophillia wrong?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Why is Pedophillia wrong? » Why is Pedophillia wrong?

Why is Pedophillia wrong?
Disclaimer: I am NOT a pedophile.

Why is Pedophillia wrong?

teleplasm
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 04/02/07 - 07:44 AM:	#11
stephendonnelly wrote: For instance, in some African tribes, marriage (which is followed immediately by sexual intercourse) occurs at a very young age. Typically, just after a female child has undergone puberty. In fact, it's still pretty much like this throughout the Third World. It used to be the case in the West, too. For instance, in England the ancient common-law age of marriage was the same as the age of puberty (14 for boys and 12 for girls) down to the 1920s. The reason why it was then raised to 16 was, incredibly, that children were thought to be maturing later. Now we're being told that children are maturing earlier. The truth probably is that physically they haven't changed, it's our cultural expectations that have changed, but as usual we resort to pseudo-scientific rationalisations. Now this, to my mind, is a really interesting topic for debate.

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/02/07 - 08:15 AM:	#12
stephendonnelly wrote: My point in saying this is simple: the fact that children are vulnerable is probably not the only reason why pedophillia is so despised. I mean, what do you think? Do we define "wrong" or "unethical" as being "that which is abnormal"? And at that point, how do we define "normal"? I understand that there are many things that can be considered to be both acceptable and abnormal. However, we have to draw the line somewhere. Civilized life depends on having a sturdy basis of standards. It is the foundation upon which the laws are able to stand and function. And, upon what basis do we draw this line? Sexuality is an incredibly complex topic that is, in my humble opinion, not very well understood at this point. Perhaps future generations of scientists will be successful in pinpointing the precise genetic-material that determines a person sexual orientation. A lot of sexuality seems to lie in the realm of psychology, though, so science, alone, may not be completely capable of explaining everything. At any rate, I hope this post was slightly better constructed than my first. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ Stephen K. Donnelly There is no clear place where we draw the line. The various accepted ages of consent show that there is no easily discernable cut-off point. Most people make these judgments by emotional feelings, and that is why paedophilia is considered immoral by many; it is due to a cultural stigmatism of sex. This is particularly prevalent in Britain. We may look for this so-called cut-off point, this area where sexual stimulation is most definitiely damaging, but I doubt we will ever truly find it. The very fact that scientific theories constantly change is testimony to my belief that we will never be able to be truly sure of whether under-13's- (because Japan, a civilised country, seems to operate quite well with an age of consent of 13) -are always harmed by sexual encounters.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 939

Posted 04/02/07 - 03:33 PM:	#13
There was a study done that relates how the personality and characteristics of your parents affect the choice of your life-long partner, on a biological level. In other words, the study was attempting to suggest that some attributes to choice of are chosen on purely a biological factor. Admittedly the study seems to be biased towards a choice of continuation of the entity through transfer of DNA. If biologically we are hardwired towards certain tendencies, then it is likely that some individuals can lead up to the next level of scale mentally. That of easy dominance. Some individuals might be biologically hardwired to automatically choose the easy ones to continue their DNA. Admittedly, not a sound possibility, and I don't quite agree logically with the idea.

Silverbackman
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/02/07 - 05:16 PM:	#14
Can someone explain to me HOW sex harms children psychologically. I'm not talking about whether it harms children, ect. I am mainly talking about what is it about sex that is so damaging to children? For example, could the rubbing of such a big body on a child trigger some sort of trauma within them? That doesn't sound that logical! There is one way that every person can absolutely agree with, that can harm a child....that is physical aspects of adult-child sex.. Physically speaking a child's sexual organs are not developed enough for say intercourse (to the vagina or penis) and anal sex. This is however the only area where adult-child sex (or even child-child sex) could be considered harmful because you can't argue with a design of nature. But to date, many of the papers I have read on why adult-child sex is psychologically harmful to a child haven't been explained. All they can say is children have been harmed by sex. And indeed some children have been psychologically harmed from sex. But why? I personally think the psychological damage has mostly to do with culture and society. Let's not forget that pedophilia existed and was even praised by a lot people in ancient Greco-Roman culture (ie pedastry) One can argue that the children were damaged in this society but is this so? The ancient Greco-Romans where one of the most advanced civilizations in the ancient world (alongside Persia, China, and India). One could even make the argument that the adult-child relationships were beneficial......though I think it has nothing to do with anything they achievements but rather that they had a very liberal attitude towards sex. Perhaps this attitude helped them to innovate being of a more open-mind, who knows.. But the main reason why I think many children are damaged by sex in Western society is the incredibly amount of shame they experience in participating in such a taboo. If the taboo was lifted, then I doubt there will be much psychological damage at all. Many children are damaged by the guilt trip they face, especially when the relationship is discovered by others. In fact the therapy a child receives after the relationship is discovered, trying to instill in the child that he or she was abused in the most horrible way, definitely contributes to why there is a lot of damage. Or the child's relationship with an adult may never be discovered, but as they get older they will find out that the relationship is considered evil, abusive, ect. ect. This of course can bring about the psychological trauma. Of course this is all linked to Judeo-Christian values where sex is considered immoral if outside marriage and only for pro-creation. We have to remember that 35 years ago homosexuals where in the exact same place where pedophiles are today and two were often allied in their rights struggle. And we all know the main reasons why homosexuality was considered wrong was because of ignorant religious beliefs. Even many non-religious people today don't realize how much the Judeo-Christian view is forming their opinion on pedophilia. This is mainly because the American Psychological Association still has pedophilia as a mental disorders along with other paraphilias. Psychology is of course a social science, so many people think the arguments toward pedophilia are necessarily scientific. The truth is that psychology hasn't advanced out of its traditional roots like other social science such as anthropology, sociology, history, ect. have. And many non-religious people accept many things from psychologists as if it is sound science. I'm going to give a parallel example on how culture plays a huge role in what is right and what can damage a person psychologically. In many parts of rural India, today and in the past, women are often required to pay a dowry at the time of marriage. Not paying a dowry is a huge taboo and when it isn't payed, the woman tends to go through hell because of the taboo. Women who don't pay dowries in India generally have a higher depression and suicide rate than those who payed their dowry. This of course has nothing to do with the physical act of paying the dowry, but it does have to do with the cultural taboo on not paying dowries. Please note: I am NOT a pedophile nor do I necessarily accept sex between adults and children (especially in today's society, where the social climate itself can damage the child). On the other hand I do think there are A LOT of myths surrounding pedophilia that won't be addressed for many decades (especially in the US). Still, many people will bring up the idea that children can't consent to sex. This of course is partially true but there are MANY things a child can't consent to that isn't addressed by the law. Why do we make such a special exception for sex? It probably has to do with are Judeo-Christian roots.

fish rising
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Location: uk
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/02/07 - 05:29 PM:	#15
Human senses are attuned to weaknesses, for whatever purpose; climb a mountain and you do so through the fractures in the stone. Paddle a rapid and you will take the path of least resistance - the 'fault' line of the river bed. Is philosophy also a reflection of this, does discussion follow meaning or the logical falliability of arguments? Humour is recognition of mental frailty, physical clumsiness or emotional immaturity...among other things Paedophiles are reviled in our culture because of the weakness they symbolise.
Future is a feeling you just haven't had enough

Wolfman
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 891

Posted 04/02/07 - 11:08 PM:	#16
Haha, nice disclaimer. stephendonnelly wrote: So, why exactly do we so shun pedophiles? Part of the reason is that we think they prey on the most innocent members of society. Children are often viewed as naive and uncorrupted. Sexuality is still considered shameful to a certain degree. Adults are supposed to "know better". In most parts of the world, pedophilia is morally reprehensible; though this term is applies loosely, and the age of consent varies greatly. stephendonnelly wrote: So, where do these people stand on the issue of pedophilia? From a psychological standpoint, I subscribe to the notion that true pedophilia and homosexuality are natural, and that these individuals further modify their behavior in relation to their environment to a certain degree. However, I believe we should act in accordance with the generic rights that we have established as a society. If a pedophile engages in sexual intercourse with someone who is below the age of consent, that pedophile should be punished accordingly. If a pedophile does not engage in sexual intercourse with someone who is below the age of consent, we should not punish them until they break the law. This is just my stance on the issue. stephendonnelly wrote: Why then, is consensual sex with a minor who is 13 or 14 years old inappropriate? It is inappropriate if society deems it inappropriate. stephendonnelly wrote: If homosexuals can claim that homosexuality is innate, they why cannot pedophiles claim that pedophillia is innate? Oh, but they can claim that pedophilia is innate. I even agree that true pedophilia is natural. Something that is natural is not wrong in itself. However, something natural that does not act in accordance with the generic rights that we have established as a society is wrong. Nature does not directly dictate human morality. Humans determine what is right or wrong. Pedophilia is wrong because society says it is wrong.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates "The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within." - Gandhi "Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck." - Kant "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu

William Burnett
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 28, 2007
Location: Bronx, NY
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 17

Last Blog: Gay and Catholic and Needed to Respond

Posted 04/02/07 - 11:28 PM:	#17
It seems to me the missing element here is "power". Does a 16-year-old consider him- or herself to be adult and capable of agreeing to sex. Probably. However, a 16-year-old is still trying to figure out who he or she is. And he or she still looks at adult-figures as persons of authority or power. I know you discussed the origins of attraction to younger persons and asked whether there is a comparison to attraction to persons of the same sex. I do not know the answer to that question. That is an etiological question psychologists and biologists have to answer within the framework of their respective disciplines. To me, I do not think the etiology of the attraction answers the ethical question. Ethically, it does not matter why people are attracted to younger persons. What matters is the consequences of acting out on that attraction; specifically, the consequences for the person with whom one is acting out. You already noted that minors are considered incapable of entering into consensual sex. They are unable to do so because they are incapable of entering into relations with adults in a way that is remotely mutual in reciprocal respect. The adult, to a minor, is a person of authority; either one to be obeyed or one from whom the minor seeks esteem. The risk is that the minor is giving up his or her own identity and self-image to please an adult; rather than engaging in a mutually-satisfying activity.
"Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo." -- Augustine of Hippo

Silverbackman
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/03/07 - 01:41 AM:	#18
Sexuality is still considered shameful to a certain degree. Adults are supposed to "know better". In most parts of the world, pedophilia is morally reprehensible; though this term is applies loosely, and the age of consent varies greatly. Yes, this is why we place such a great value on sex. In modern western society we view sex as somewhat shameful, which of course is based off the old Judeo-Christian belief that sex is immoral if not done for procreation and should generally be resisted. Now that we accept fornication and other area where sex isn't "sacred", it still caries that mystical aura to it making it such a big decision children cannot consent to. Especially with the idea that "sex" and "romance" are often equated in our society, when of course many adults just want children for sex (not all, but some). It's linked to the same reason why Americans can take so much violence in their media but cannot stand media showing nudity or anything related to sex. One could look at the Janet Jackson incident when her breast was shown. Parents started going crazy on how they are going to explain such a thing to their kids. They didn't realize that it is just a freaking breast. Many tribal cultures walk around with their women's breasts bare and no children enter traumatic states of mind when they see this. There is definitely a shame aspect to all this because of the idea that to not resist "lust" is a sin against god. Even if the person isn't religious, that taboo still exists especially when psychology still hasn't denounced all paraphilias. So atheists don't have many places to turn for defending pedophiles like we do with homosexuality. I do however believe that day will come in the western world, but not for many decades. Pedophilia is wrong because society says it is wrong. I totally agree. In ancient Greece and Rome pedophilia, homosexuality, etc. were all considered okay and in some ways glorified (especially pederasty). It seems to me the missing element here is "power". Does a 16-year-old consider him- or herself to be adult and capable of agreeing to sex? Probably. However, a 16-year-old is still trying to figure out who he or she is. And he or she still looks at adult-figures as persons of authority or power. Why does power play such a big role in sex anymore than anything else? If a 14 year old looks to an adult as a person of power and authority, that same older person can convince the teen to do other things. But most other things aren't banned. For example in many European countries adults encourage their kids to drink a lot when they are like 12 or 13. This of course isn't illegal, and up to the parents to decide. But could a child really consent to take such a hard drug like alcohol which would damage their brain cells and worse? I'd say youngsters are equally able to consent to taking hard drugs than they are for sex. Or even junk food which has no regulations on it at all. Can a child really consent to junk food, especially when they are some of the leading causes of obesity in America and other western countries? Can they understand the ramifications and consequences for it? If a "person of power" started teaching a child how to fight, could a child really consent to such a thing? Especially when a child could use it in fits of rage to hurt someone while not understanding it is only for sport or self defense (and of course, violence in this case isn't looked down upon like sex). But for some reason adults have the power to convince minors to do all these other things under law, but not sex. Why is sex such a serious matter anymore than anything else? Because culture and society decided it was. If culture and society thought differently, say like the ancient Greeks, they wouldn't view pedophilia as necessarily harmful. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 04/04/07 - 07:35 AM. Reason: capitalization, punctuation

William Burnett
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 28, 2007
Location: Bronx, NY
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 17

Last Blog: Gay and Catholic and Needed to Respond

Posted 04/04/07 - 05:30 PM:	#19
Silverbackman, Why does power play such a big role in sex anymore than anything else? If a 14 year old looks to an adult as a person of power and authority, that same older person can convince the teen to do other things. But most other things aren't banned. Because sex has a sense of shame and responsibility attached to it. I have read the comments questioning whether the shame is natural or culturally-induced. I am not challenging posts on that question. At this point I am not prepared to address that question because I have not had reason to reflect on it. I merely wanted to point out that ethical questions do not only consider etiology, but also consequences. Perhaps there is nothing intrinsically wrong with having sex with someone who is not an adult and the taboo against doing so was culturally-induced. My point is the taboo exists, regardless of its origins. Because there is such a taboo, the natural personal boundries of the minor in question would have to be crossed or broken down in order to act out on an inclination for sex with the minor. Crossing that boundry would seem to require an incredible amount of trust and authority that the other scenarios you suggested would not require. Without personally being a psychologist, I can only imagine that the minor responding to the adult for sex would have to sacrifice his or her identity or personality; only because that taboo exists. Edited by William Burnett on 04/04/07 - 05:35 PM. Reason: italics, grammar
"Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo." -- Augustine of Hippo

Verbum Sapienti
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 250

Posted 04/06/07 - 02:23 AM:	#20
stephendonnelly wrote: Children may not have experiential knowledge of sexuality until puberty, but they certainly know everything about it by age 7 or 8. I have had kindergarten teachers tell me that they have been having problems with kindergartners using swear words just articulately as middle-schoolers. They know exactly what F* means. To claim that children "know everything about" sexuality at the age of 7 suggests to me that you are living in a strange world. Any mature adult will tell you that there is much, much more to understanding sexuality than naively claiming to "know what the word f* means". stephendonnelly wrote: If homosexuals can claim that homosexuality is innate, they why cannot pedophiles claim that pedophillia is innate? Of course they could claim so, but so what? A mass-murderer could claim that his murdering tendencies were "innate" - but does that mean he should be allowed to satisfy those innate tendencies? No matter whether a behaviour is innate or not, if that behaviour is unacceptable to the rest of society then it cannot be either condoned or tolerated. stephendonnelly wrote: upon what basis do non-religious people view pedophillia as being inappropriate? Society has a moral obligation to protect (from exploitation) the weak, impressionable, or easily influenced members of that society. Any activity which opens up the possibility of the exploitation of such members in ways which may not necessarily be beneficial to those members could be viewed as morally wrong - and this has nothing to do with religion. For example : In the UK, a total ban has recently been introduced on junk food advertising around all children's programming, on all children's channels and around all programmes that have a "particular appeal" to under 16-year-olds. Making paedophilia illegal is just one more example of society fulfilling this moral obligation to protect it's citizens.
humans put constraints on what they can understand more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.