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.

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

Why is Pedophillia wrong?

_claire
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/23/08 - 06:45 PM:	#201
I think everything you've said so far about why pedophiles ARE BAD is absolutely true. Kids are young and naive, and haven't had the experience to make smart decisions, even at 12 and 13 they don't always know what they're getting into. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that homosexuality does not hurt anyone else. It is has no other negative effects on other person besides just unacceptance from other people. It is bad enough for a person to have sexual desires for a younger kid, particularly a very young one whom they could not even connect with that much on an emotional level. But it is another thing to act on those feelings willingly, knowing that what you are doing is wrong and will screw up that kid psychologically. That is the difference.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 54

Posted 05/23/08 - 08:00 PM:	#202
Who are you even talking to? Who is "you"?

jakderippah
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 3

Posted 06/04/08 - 04:03 PM:	#203
We're living in an age where men have sex with women, men, animals, transvestites. Browse any porn site and you find categories ranging from "puking" to "pissing" to "scat"... We live in a generation that thinks not with brains but with di*s. In spite of all this child molestation is looked down upon as one of the worst crimes. "Right" or "Wrong" is a question of LAW as far as the country's perspective goes... As far as laws go, a nation tolerates only activities that do not casue grief or harm to its individuals and hinder its productivity...In spite of allowing all the other above mentioned perversions, pedophilia is the one thing they dont allow...because it doesnt matter if you're a degenerate but if you're ruining an other possibly productive individual, the law intervenes...consentual or not a, child is still developing his capability to think...children are incapable of making decisons...so by consenting to have sex with a child, you're abusing the responsibility given to you by your country and exploiting a childs incapability to make a rational decision...the country doesnt like what you did, it imprisons you to prevent ruining other productive minds...period. These are the laws of a nation... Dont like them...Live elsewhere... If you try to move outside the circle of "laws" and "ethics" you have no right or wrong so how can there even BE a question of wether pedophilia is "right" or "wrong"?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/05/08 - 04:40 PM:	#204
_claire wrote: I think everything you've said so far about why pedophiles ARE BAD is absolutely true. Kids are young and naive, and haven't had the experience to make smart decisions, even at 12 and 13 they don't always know what they're getting into. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that homosexuality does not hurt anyone else. It is has no other negative effects on other person besides just unacceptance from other people. It is bad enough for a person to have sexual desires for a younger kid, particularly a very young one whom they could not even connect with that much on an emotional level. But it is another thing to act on those feelings willingly, knowing that what you are doing is wrong and will screw up that kid psychologically. That is the difference. That's awefully condescending to assume everyone under 17 (or whatever your consent age is) is a naive fool who cant make descisions. And it's also inconsistent if your implying that once someone hits that consent age they immediately have the ability to make well-informed choices about sex. I can easily imagine there are 14 year olds who have better judgement about sex than any given drunken 18 year old at a party, yet it's perfectly legal for the 18 year old to have sex and not the 14 year old. Sounds like the solution lays in licencing. If a 13 year old can pass a regulated examination about STDs, birth control and related topics, then they can be permitted to choose to have sex. If a 20 year old knows nothing about proper birth control use and so forth, then they may not have sex (assuming you wish to be consistent in your belief that sexual freedom should be based on an understanding, or lack there of, of sex).
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

JrKIler18
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

Posted 06/08/08 - 07:51 PM:	#205
Eventually, freedom of choice will defeat all the arguments. I mean the bottom line is, each person only has the right to choose for themselves, on what they consider to be right or wrong, within the limitation of the outcome will effect themselves only. Though I am extremely against pedophilia, however if the child chooses on his or her free will to have sex with the pedophile, then I am afraid I have no solid argument to prove that the act of pedophilia is wrong ethically.

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 298

Posted 06/09/08 - 02:26 AM:	#206
JrKIler18 wrote: Eventually, freedom of choice will defeat all the arguments. I mean the bottom line is, each person only has the right to choose for themselves, on what they consider to be right or wrong, within the limitation of the outcome will effect themselves only. Though I am extremely against pedophilia, however if the child chooses on his or her free will to have sex with the pedophile, then I am afraid I have no solid argument to prove that the act of pedophilia is wrong ethically. & a pre pubesant child - a 5 year old - or any aged child for that matter, can make that choice in a meanigfull way, fully aware of the implications of that decision for themselves? Edited by Zhuangzi on 06/09/08 - 02:32 AM
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

JrKIler18
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

Posted 06/10/08 - 03:44 AM:	#207
How can you argue 18 is THE age that one can start making the right decision? Do you know about the show, "are you smarter than a 5 grader"? Some of the adults on the show were pretty ignorant. Also, from my knowledge majority of the children were forced to have sex, rather than wanting to have sex. I do believe that it is the parent’s responsibility to guard their child and protect them from pedophiles. I do agree 5 year old child cannot make a good choice for themselves, but I do not believe that they would choose to have sex with adults or make that decision without force. However I do believe that around age 14-17 kids do want to have sex and some do secretly have sex with adults, so in other words they seek sexual experience, even though their parents tries to protect them. In that case how would argue that the act of pedophile is wrong?

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 298

Posted 06/10/08 - 04:36 AM:	#208
JrKIler18 wrote: How can you argue 18 is THE age that one can start making the right decision? Do you know about the show, "are you smarter than a 5 grader"? Some of the adults on the show were pretty ignorant. Also, from my knowledge majority of the children were forced to have sex, rather than wanting to have sex. I do believe that it is the parent’s responsibility to guard their child and protect them from pedophiles. I do agree 5 year old child cannot make a good choice for themselves, but I do not believe that they would choose to have sex with adults or make that decision without force. However I do believe that around age 14-17 kids do want to have sex and some do secretly have sex with adults, so in other words they seek sexual experience, even though their parents tries to protect them. In that case how would argue that the act of pedophile is wrong? All this has already been discussed; round & round we go. In the UK it’s 16 to legally have sex, not 18. Some parts of the World I think it is legal to have sex with 14 year olds, & if it is consenting & there is maturity (sexual & emotional, to a degree), then why not. I would suppose that if an 11 or 12 year old was sexually mature enough & aware of the implications; that they too could have sex within a consenting relationship - I think that many people from the age of 11 & above probably are involved in sexual relations of one kind & another, albeit more with people their own age. We cannot easily separate the issues of law; in reality the illegality of the act has its own implications. I don't think this is being that contested - what people have raised question to, especially in relation to the paedophiles postings on this thread - is that it is inherently wrong for an adult to coerce a child into sex, or to initiate sex acts with children who are not aware of the implications, or of what they are doing. Possibly there are some (very few children) who are not harmed by such relations in certain circumstances, But what does the child get from such acts? The primary motivation & drive for sex is after all procreation. The response from the paedophiles is to weakly say that if the child consents then there isn’t a problem, & to ask to categorically prove why it is wrong, without them having any clarity on what constitutes consent. As has been pointed out already in this thread - This question is a variant of what used to be called 'the devil's question', 'quidne?' or 'why not?' In the same way – What is wrong with rape? With murder? With genocide? With torture? Anything for that matter.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

scaryflakybiscuits
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 06/11/08 - 09:04 AM:	#209
There is far more to a sexual interaction than just the physical act. An adult has a completely different emotional and cognitive profile to a child. A meaningful and non exploitative sexual act is when there is a mutual understanding between the two people involved. There has to be a certain equality. I can't see how a 13 year old girl and a adult man could possibly relate to each other in a meaningful way. The physical act would probably be interpreted by each of them in a completely different way. Either the man would regard the girl purely as a sex object or he would have an idealised fantasy that he was in some way in love with her. The girl would have some very immature notions about what was going on and would be relating to an adult on the same level she would relate to a peer. It's the emotional and psychological mismatch that is inappropriate. Having said that I admit that there are no hard and fast rules in life. I suppose it's possible that an adult man and a young girl could genuinely be in love and have a meaningful sexual relationship. However this would be by far and away the total exception. Most men interested in girls significantly younger than themselves are emotionally, sexually and psychologically maladjusted in some way. Their main interest is to fulfil a fantasy whether it's sexually sadistic or romantically fanciful. They have no genuine concern for the girl or in relating in a meaningful adult way with another human being. I don't think the comparison to homosexuality is valid because a homosexual relationship can be between two equals who understand the full implication of what they are doing. I think society feels comfortable in viewing paedophilia as an aberration not related to the rest of mainstream sexuality. I'm afraid I don't agree with this. The statistical evidence suggests that paedophilia is so common as to deserve the title normal. Law enforcement agencies are completely overwhelmed by the volume pornography involving minors being distributed on the internet. Also sexual abuse is practiced within all types of relationships whether it's between an adult and a minor, between two adults of the opposite sex or between two adults of the same sex. It is even practiced by children on other children. We collectively as a culture have a major problem with sexuality and with relating to each other properly. Paedophilia to me is just a more extreme expression of this. It was noted that paedophiles are given a particularly hard time in prison by other men. Men who have probably committed acts of extreme violence but have the moral high ground because it wasn't against children. It is easy for us to point at paedophilia and condemn it. I would say most men in adult relationships can't relate to their partners in a meaningful way. If you don't believe this go check the statistics on the amount of woman in abusive relationships. Children and animals offer an emotionally simplistic world for us to escape from the complex emotional minefield of adult relationships. Anyway, the main question is why is paedophilia wrong or something to that effect. It's wrong because it's exploitative however so I believe are most sexual relationships in our culture. As a last point to note, isn't it telling that we equate sexual awareness with loss of innocence? The implication of this is that sexual knowledge is equated with guilt.

NeoScholastic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 18, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 06/18/08 - 08:31 PM:	#210
I haven't read all of this thread, so maybe what I am about to say has already been discussed and debunked. But I will venture my thoughts, and if I make myself appear foolish please be gentle. Firstly, I would say that what you find beautiful is influenced by what you value. So for example, if you value bravery, you will find bravery beautiful, and think it beautiful when a man is brave. I think that love is what occurs when two souls recognize their values in the other, and thus come to believe that the other is beautiful. Secondly, I would say that harmony is a certain kind of order that is pleasing to man. For example, we find great natural harmony in mathematics, and the Mona Lisa is much more harmonious than the scrawlings of a child. A thing is harmonious when the parts fit together to create a whole that is pleasing and beautiful. Now, a love between two people can be more or less harmonious along a given scale, according to the degree to which the two souls are in order together. So a couple can be on one end extremely unhappy with one another, when they are not harmonious, or extremely happy with one another when they are harmonious. And there are various degrees long this scale. But I think that an adult and a child, because they are of such different levels of maturity, physically, cognitively, and emotionally, are generally incapable of having the kind of harmony that results in a pleasing and beautiful romantic love. And for that reason pedophilia is ugly and displeasing to men of right reason and sound moral constitution.
"I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are wise and very beautiful; but I have never read in either of them: 'Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden.'" - St Augustine

ham
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/14/08 - 07:49 AM:	#211
I've seen it mentioned a few times, but just for purposes of clarification, it should be mentioned that a pedophile never has to engage in sexual activity with any child. Just as one does not necessarily require sexual contact with a woman or man to define his or her sexual desires. Pedophilia in itself is essentialy a sexual orientation, certainly taboo as set forth by society, and taboo enough to definately be considered a sexual disorder, but that's just arguing semantics. I've often wondered about the morality of it, as well. Pedophilia is simply the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It does not entail any act involved with actually having sex with a child. A pedophile can be completely exclusive without ever being a child molester, and I would have a lot of respect for such a person - It certainly is not immoral to have thoughts. I could fantasize and maturbate to chopping heads off of nuns and eating babies alive, but in the end, a fantasy is a fantasy and it is pointless to even attach morality to personal thoughts in a sense when it then becomes completely counterproductive to the individual. The ideal pedophile in my mind deserves respect for his or her 'affliction', so to say, if they learn to deal with it and keep it within the range of their own morality, which I would say involves never having sex with any child. I have nothing but contempt for child molesters - You can argue that children have sexuality, that man-boy love can be healthy, whatever. The conversations end up just revolving in circles, similar to some of the responses here it seems. From my own insight, I cannot see any instance where sex with a child would necessarily be healthy, and thus moral. All my personal experiences from children have led me to conclude that they are most definately not ready, physically, mentally, or emotionally, to have sex with an adult. I suppose you could talk about subjective truths and morality and morality as defined by society's norms, as I have noticed, but common sense should prevail in this matter. Children are children, they should do children things, and if sex becomes an issue, it should be by their own volition with other children their own age if they will. The negatives of adult-child sex far outweigh any argument for condoning it. NAMBLA and organizations like that...well, there are certainly more important issues in the world that need attention. Perhaps we should just leave age of consent alone. In summary, I suppose I could say that I have complete respect for a pedophile who realizes the harm of his fantasies if carried out, and satisfies his thoughts with himself. In contrast, I have nothing but utter contempt for any person who willingly harms any child.

SSovereign
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34

Posted 07/25/08 - 02:21 PM:	#212
FYI, there is evidence that those who sexually offend against minors do not necessarily have it uniquely awful in prison. I'll look it up and post it later, if you are interested. stephendonnelly wrote: Why then, is consensual sex with a minor who is 13 or 14 years old inappropriate? I should let you know that clinically speaking, there is nothing remotely pedophilic about this -- especially if the 13-14 year old is female. By then, typical girls have full breasts, developed labias and waist-to-hip ratios that normals find attractive. One of the necessary criteria for pedophilia set by the American Psychiatric Association: Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children 13-14 year old girls are typically not even close to prepubescent. The average girl becomes visibly pubescent (i.e., Tanner Stage 2) by around age 10. Edited by SSovereign on 07/25/08 - 02:27 PM
http://www.sovereignism.org/

willallen
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 07/25/08 - 05:21 PM:	#213
i think that the only reason that most people are vehemently anti-pedophilia is because our society hasnt come to terms with it yet. pedophilia today is like the homosexuality of the 50's (rough comparison). eventually pedophilia rights groups (NORML?, i don't know much about them) will go mainstream talking of the plight of the pedophiliac, and people will start to see that pedophiliacs are people too, and pedophilia will (possibly) be tolerated. all this talk of whats natural and whats not is ridiculous. Whether we came from microorganisms or from god, we're all natural beings and everything we do is done naturally (lying, loving, have kiddie sex, etc.) i believe that on a very basic level everything is natural, but that doesn't automatically make it right. A choice can't be categorized as natural or unnatural, its just a choice. but i digress... just fyi: i am not a pedophile. woo hoo first post!! Edited by willallen on 07/25/08 - 07:09 PM

Philosophical
That Guy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2008
Location: Reality
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 43

Posted 07/25/08 - 08:47 PM:	#214
And to be honest with you, I believe him. Pedophiles are viewed by the public as the scum of society --- I don't think anyone will disagree with me here. Why shouldn't I view a perverted creep, who took the innocence of a small child as scum? Why then, is consensual sex with a minor who is 13 or 14 years old inappropriate? Let's get something straight. Lets define a teenager down to the bare facts: Lacking experience Only have just reached the age to even think, or delve, into their own sexuality or sexual urges. Now, lets apply this to a comparison. If you had a pilot, this pilot has just gained enough experience to understand basic functions of an airplane, would you say this person was able to fly a plane because someone older and more experienced pilot told him he could? No, the pilot, although possessing basic knowledge of whats going on, would not have the experience or the full sense of what to do, despite this 'encouragement' from the more experienced pilot. The same can be applied to a teenage kid. They're in the process of developing a sexual knowledge, sexuality, and eventually a sex life. They should not be pressured nor made to make a choice before they're fully aware. Edited by Philosophical on 07/25/08 - 08:55 PM
“No one can give you any answers. There aren’t any. You have to discover for yourself—you must learn to navigate the mystery.” -Bill Hicks

The Joker
Ubermench

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2008
Location: South Bend IN
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 41

Posted 07/26/08 - 09:31 AM:	#215
Well for one, all of this is for some part is subjective,and ethnocentric, in roman times it was common practice for men to have sex with children. They saw it as building 'character' or giving them knowledge on sex and what they like to some degree. I think the major reasons for people to hate this is because this children aren't people yet, these are incomplete humans, they have no idea what they want or what they like. Being attracted to a child, it can be argued is being attracted to the innocence and submissiveness and the ability to be completely dominate over them. As a society we can not tolerate the curruption of the innocence it is one of the core values of our society, when a group of people or in this case children are a certain way and can't help it we tend to highly sympathize with those people(i.e. retards, blacks, native americans, or any other group our great nation has oppressed). We also have people like Freud who have shown in there professional point of view how that, that kind of relations can severely scar children for life.
"It is entirely seemly for a young man killed in battle to lie mangled by the bronze spear. In his death all things appear fair." - Homer

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 54

Posted 09/10/08 - 02:17 PM:	#216
Been a while, so I don't quite remember everything I said here. But I'm sure my oppinions haven't changed enough for me to say different things should I be asked the same things, so I don't think it'll be a problem. However, I'm going to try to write differently, to see how it works. Instead of posting huge paragraphs of why I think such-in-such is wrong, I think I'm just going to state that I reject the assumption and/or request an explanation. This should cut down my post length considerably, and I've always had a problem with wordyness. So to the topic! These are the laws of a nation... Dont like them...Live elsewhere... Why? There is far more to a sexual interaction than just the physical act. An adult has a completely different emotional and cognitive profile to a child. A meaningful and non exploitative sexual act is when there is a mutual understanding between the two people involved. There has to be a certain equality. Why does there have to be a certain equality? How does mutual understanding between two people create a "meaningful and non exploitative" sexual act? What do you even mean by "meaningful and non exploitative"? Either the man would regard the girl purely as a sex object or he would have an idealised fantasy that he was in some way in love with her. How do you know that? It's the emotional and psychological mismatch that is inappropriate. Why? Most men interested in girls significantly younger than themselves are emotionally, sexually and psychologically maladjusted in some way. Where do you get this information? I don't think the comparison to homosexuality is valid because a homosexual relationship can be between two equals who understand the full implication of what they are doing. What do you mean by "equals" and why do two people of different ages not apply? I would say most men in adult relationships can't relate to their partners in a meaningful way. I have a question. You stated previously that one must relate to his partner in a meaningful way. It also seems that you say that this relating causes a physical act of sex to be interpreted the same way, and that this equal interpretation creates a meaningful and non exploitative relationship. If most a men in an adult relationship can't relate to their partners in a meaningful way, if what you say is true, doesn't that mean that these relationships are not meaningful and non-exploitative? But I think that an adult and a child, because they are of such different levels of maturity, physically, cognitively, and emotionally, are generally incapable of having the kind of harmony that results in a pleasing and beautiful romantic love. How does this follow from your explanations on beauty and harmony, and its importance in a relationship? The conversations end up just revolving in circles, similar to some of the responses here it seems. From my own insight, I cannot see any instance where sex with a child would necessarily be healthy, and thus moral. What do you mean by Health here, and why do you equate morality to health? If you had a pilot, this pilot has just gained enough experience to understand basic functions of an airplane, would you say this person was able to fly a plane because someone older and more experienced pilot told him he could? No, the pilot, although possessing basic knowledge of whats going on, would not have the experience or the full sense of what to do, despite this 'encouragement' from the more experienced pilot. Why is experience important?

Lord Dimwit Flathead

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

Posted 10/02/08 - 09:39 AM:	#217
To discuss societal revulsion towards pedophilia as a rationally justified part of society is misleading. -What if a 14 year old girl who's been around the block sleeps with the 40 year old virgin? Who is the 'exploited' 'innocent' here. -Sexual relations by default denounced as exploitation by definition? Surely it is not legitimate to predicate law on vague emotionally charged blanket assumptions. -Children as innocents is a false concept. Children are simply amoral until taught the ethical standards of their society. -Not understanding/naivety is not a good criteria either. This varies widely from person to person. Indeed, there are certainly individuals well beyond the age of consent who are not well equipped to make such decisions. -Therefore, is it really territory that can be regulated by state coercion considering that there are really no objective standards by which to operate? Many posters here are assuming far more rationality and fairness than actually exists in human societies. What it boils down to is not rationality, but the vestige of the need to control the sexual activities of young women until the age of marriage and to destroy men who would debase such valuable dowered property. In modern times, it exists as anti-male legislation designed to curtail the 'monstrous' and 'savage' reproductive imperatives of men and uphold mores that lost their function in society generations ago. Widespread revulsion is a kneejerk reflex. For most of the history of civilization, even the most competitive men often required until their thirties to be solvent enough for marriage. These lucky well to do men married high school age girls who could bear them lots of children.(They didn't work hard for years to get less than the best.) It is well known that women prefer older financially established men. For many men, a high school girl would therefore find them far more attractive than the peers of their generation. Thus, pedophile laws currently serve the function of giving women a grossly disproportionate amount of power on the romantic market by cutting off men from the single most available and desirable source of potential partners. The slightest breach can result in years in prison, a grossly disproportionate punishment for an action of debatable illegality or harmfulness. Ironically, a man convicted of statutory rape can actually be thrown in prison where he will experience real rape. Horrifically unjust, but men are expendable and women a resource to be cherished in virtually every society. The revulsion that comes with sex with a minor is but a manifestation of that pervasive paradigm. There is no rational pretext for forbidding consenting intercourse based on arbitrary criteria. It is simply social control as usual. Edited by Lord Dimwit Flathead on 10/02/08 - 09:49 AM

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 298

Posted 10/02/08 - 12:20 PM:	#218
Yes, it's all societies fault & it's pesky false morals, lets do away with these meaningless rules & have a sexual free for all where we can all run about Fucking children. The poor Pedophile, abused by the fake morality of society.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

Lord Dimwit Flathead

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

Posted 10/02/08 - 12:56 PM:	#219
The curious tribal customs in question are not so much 'fake morality' as they are social mores in place for the preservation of an established culture. Keep in mind, sir, that 'children' in our societies at 13 and 14 years old are in many cases already having sex. Part of the problem here is that you are begging the question with prefabricated notions of what is a child. The legal definition of the word is different from the biological or even the social definition. Under the current order, a pedophile could in some regions be an 18 year old having relations with a 16 year old. Furthermore, you are begging the question that sex at a young age is by necessity 'exploitative' and that it would be a 'free for all' like Vikings raping and pillaging. Not only do you couch your position in ludicrously loaded terms, I do not agree with the assumptions from which you arrive at your position. Keep in mind: For centuries past girls in the 13-14 age range were married to substantially older men. Was this an evil practice? A girl was set up with a relatively comfortable life without ever having to worry for material needs. Very much a soft, privileged existence by the standards of any time period. Yet such an action is inherently 'child abuse' and therefore criminal? You have presented me with little more than an insubstantial sarcastic couple of sentences. You, sir, have provided an excellent example of the reflexive knee jerk reaction of unthinking societal censure I mentioned. I would submit that you have perhaps actually strengthened my case by providing a real life example as evidence. The point here is to ask 'why?' rather than to condemn those who argue from another perspective. Edited by Lord Dimwit Flathead on 10/02/08 - 01:03 PM

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 298

Posted 10/02/08 - 01:54 PM:	#220
Despite my sarcasm I was being serious - lets have a free for all & Fuck children - after all its only missguided law that makes it illegal; nothing wrong with it really. That is after all what you & certain others are saying.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

Lord Dimwit Flathead

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

Posted 10/02/08 - 02:42 PM:	#221
So who are children here, why should they be protected, if so under what circumstances? Or are the current laws absolutely perfect and should remain exactly the same? If so, why? Being serious doesn't mean you have an argument, a case, or a point. Your position that the only alternative to the present scenario is rape and pillage is a false dichotomy. The assumption that consensual sex with a 17 year old must result in the all out gang rape of toddlers is absurd, silly even. These 'children' who are engaged in intercourse with a considerably older person: -Are they willing active, consensual participants? -Have they attained some modicum of biological adulthood (secondary sexual traits for instance?) -Are they harmed or traumatized by the experience? -Do they benefit from the experience? Mustn't one do harm to do wrong? If no harm is done, what is the wrong. If one or more parties involved actually benefits without doing any harm, then isn't it good from an ethical standpoint? You don't seem to have thought this through. There is a difference between ethics and social mores. Social mores are simply socially acceptable practices and rules that might or might not be moral or ethical. You seem to have this odd idea that I am somehow questioning morality itself by questioning mores and laws concerning human sexuality? Edited by Lord Dimwit Flathead on 10/02/08 - 02:53 PM

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Exeter University
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1001

Posted 10/02/08 - 03:00 PM:	#222
The problem with paedophilia, as understood by the majority of people, is that because minors are typically unable to give informed consent, any sexual activities engaged with the child would be a form of abuse. That paedophilia is considered wrong derives from abuse being considered wrong. The legal distinctions between those who can give informed consent and those who cannot are placed as considered most appropriate. In some countries this is 16. In some 18. In some 14. In some, 12. (Which, strangely, is the age of consent in the Vatican City). In those places where the age of consent is 18, it would be considered paedophilia for a person of 21 to have sex with a 16 year old, whereas in places where the age of consent is 16, it would not. But it is because of any abuse involved that such activity is considered wrong. Not because of the age. The age is generally correlative, not specifically integral. Because of this, it may be possible for a 12 year old to give informed consent to sexual relations with a 20 year old, and it may be possible for a 21 year old to not give informed consent to the same. In the former there is no abuse, whereas in the latter there is, and it is the presence of abuse or lack thereof that determines the ethics or morality of the sexual activities.
I both love and hate language with a passion.

Lord Dimwit Flathead

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

Posted 10/02/08 - 04:25 PM:	#223
OK. So there's all these laws, but let's face it, plenty of 12-13 year olds are sleeping around while there are also some 40 year old virgins. These laws are sexist and ageist. These laws by design mostly foil the sexual preference of normal heterosexual male adults(young, attractive chicks). (Women mostly look for older, socially established men). There are of course fetishes and deviancies, but it cannot be ignored that the main problem here is that a whole harvest of the very most attractive prospective mates for males is neatly cordoned off on pain of years in prison and social humiliation and vilification of the most extreme variety. The implication that males must be abusive monsters to be restrained through the most radical of measures is deeply degrading and hurtful to men. Laws that make banging willing, hot young ladies illegal under all circumstances are thus anti-male and against male sexuality. How would women react if they were thrown in prison and humiliated by society for 'abusing' millionaires over forty years of age? Not very well, I think. Uninformed? About what? So the older guy who is supposedly better informed makes a Miranda statement warning about the possibility of pregnancy and emotional attachments. If uninformed, inform them. Does a consenting partner being uninformed or misleadingly informed constitute a crime? If so, surely most salesmen could be thrown in jail. At some point it must be up to people to inform themselves rather than the state forcing them to be informed and jailing the people who didn't inform them. I think the main sticking point here is concerns of maturity. This is unquantifiable for the most part and therefore: should it be a matter for state coercion? By what objective standard does the state coerce? Age alone clearly does not cut it. There are many 13 year old girls far better 'informed' than an elderly and faithfully celibate catholic priest.

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 298

Posted 10/02/08 - 05:11 PM:	#224
Lord Dimwit Flathead; are you HalcyonGlaze in disguise? Because you sound identical. There is no rational, or logic that would enter your mind that fucking children is wrong. Thank God we have laws to help protect societies vulnerable.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

Lord Dimwit Flathead

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

Posted 10/02/08 - 07:58 PM:	#225
The genteel exchange of niceties at tonight's dinner party has taken an unfortunate turn: "Lord Dimwit Flathead the Excessive, Methinks thou art a sockpuppet and I do hereby smite thee with my Dainty Glove and challenge thee to a duel on the morrow..." This is not exactly a response to my arguments. You indicate that you find the implications I have brought forth personally distasteful. Fine. I recognize that I have adopted an unorthodox viewpoint that is discordant with what most of us were raised with. But why am I wrong ethically, morally, or otherwise? The laws in question here actually remove the ability of an individual between ages 0 and 18 from consenting to sexual intercourse with an adult. This is an affront to reason because this taboo period stretches long past the point of puberty and into the highest and most brilliant years of fertility. The law currently holds a teenager in the same esteem as a toddler or newborn child. Yet: you criticize me for failing to make distinctions between clearly separate categories and stages of life. These laws are an affront to reason because me getting lucky with the prom queen is under the law equivalent to forcibly raping a five year old. Because she cannot legally consent, it apparently makes no difference whether she is screaming in mortal terror, humiliation, and pain or ecstatically screaming my illustrious name with all its attendant titles over and over again. As an affront to reason these laws are unjust. I have already explained: These laws are brutally sexist and ageist, claims you could not be bothered to address. Your concerns seem to be primarily circumscribed by whether or not I am some web buddy trying to get the better of you. This is regrettable. Your melodramatic statement about society gallantly protecting vulnerable individuals is meaningless: Who is invulnerable? Societies protect the weak? Hmmmmmm. incredulous eyebrow

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.