I saw something today in Free Speech Alley that infuriated me to no end.
As I was walking home from class, I happened upon some people pushing a 'no' vote on the gay marriage ban. A young man was calling them 'inhuman' for being gay and supporting supporting 'such a crime to nature and God'.
Now, I'm a liberal, so maybe this crossed a line for me, but I still don't see how someone can be 'inhuman' for being who they are. I understand that Christianity frowns upon homosexuality, but I do know that the Catholic doctorine calls on gays to become clergymen so that they will take a vow of chastity.
This just infuritated me to no end, and after the person left, I approached the lobbyists and commended them on their bravery. They're certainly braver than I, that's for certain.
His (sad) reply was, "I'm used to it by now, but thank you for your support."
This upset me even more!
I understand that people have different views, but WHY is it so HARD for people to accept that fact?!
... I think this struck home with me because I have a very close friend who just recently told me she was bisexual. Although I wasn't exactally stunned by this news--I had suspected for a while--she told me that she had never told anyone because the last person she told beat her up over it. Someone who called himself her FRIEND. That, in my opinion, tarnishes the name.
Please, I urge EVERYONE, liberals, conservatives and moderates alike, please don't stoop to this level. If you wish to have a conversation, make it civil, and try to keep an open mind. If you get too heated, take a step back and think before you yell that someone is inhuman because they are different from yourself.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Wonderful intentions and I applaud you for making the effort.
-Trevor
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(((Mayday))) Those who call it "inhuman" are definitely overreacting and hurting the truth they purport to serve.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I agree 100%. Being gay in this world is so hard... Gay, trans, bi.. whatever Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Why do people act this way?!
If they are using the Bible as an excuse, what about its many teachings of love?
I just don't get it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Holy crap...
I would have ripped that dude a new one...
Once someone stoops to that level they are fair game to my wrath...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I had a professor in college who said, "There are two types of people who are violent against gays, those who get hit on too often by members of their own sex, and those who don't get hit on often enough by them."
Think of it as an OCD problem. Some people enjoy putting things in their proper place. They are fanatical about where their pencil goes on their desk and where their books are aligned and what is what and what isn't. They cannot handle a world disordered. To them Men are Men and women are women and when you confuse that division it is an assault on their basic understanding of the universe. They just can not accept that some men like other men and some women like other women and some of both like both. Many turn to history or religion to desparately prove themselves right and in doing so, shielding their narrow mindedness behind the bible or US history, they tarnish both.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
I agree with you Telp--Insanity Plea and I have been fighting over who gets to kill the so-called 'friend' first.
My friend and I have since had many conversations about homosexuality--mostly because I, as a heterosexual, am curious to see both sides of the coin. Of course, it's a lot easier for me because I'm also on her side of the debate.
I just don't see how this is justified, on either side. When I told my roommate, however, she just shrugged and said, "Well, ignorance is rampant". Shouldn't we change this, though? And how would one go about changing it? Religion and politics and the gray space between is the kindling for firey tempers.
Edit to add: Dan, I think you answered my question, and in a very eloquent manner, too. I just hate to see people hurting one another in such a way.
[ September 17, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Shouldn't we change this, though?
YES!!
How?
I dunno. Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
A person's sexual orientation is just that, an angle from which they view their sexuality. Assigning the label inhuman to that orientation is the mark of either fear or ignorance. Even if you think that homosexuality is a genetic malfunction or a sin, that doesn't strip the humanity from a practitioner. It's a shame that so many react with vitriol and violence when confronted with ideas that aren't within their framework.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Human nature is what it is - whether it marches under the Swastika or the Cross.
In retrospect, this is harsher than I intended.
I certainly don't mean to imply Christians are equal to Nazis (Godwin's Law, anyone?), but I do think fear, ignorance and hatred can march openly or lurk in dark corners.
-Trevor
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Now, I'm a liberal, so maybe this crossed a line for me, but I still don't see how someone can be 'inhuman' for being who they are.
I'm not sure it's so hard to understand...
How do you feel about pedophiles, for instance?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: I just don't get it.
You get it perfectly, bev. THEY don't get it. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Hmmm... isn't a thread titled "GRR!" generally a rant?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: How do you feel about pedophiles, for instance?
I don't consider pedophiles inhuman. That would limit their culpability. They're not sick - they're acts are sickening. They're not inhuman - they're just humans that do evil things.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have OCD. Where's the raised eyebrow smiley?
Xap, I feel bad for pedophiles. But I tend to use the word "inhuman" as a descriptor for behavior that denies the humanity of others. Torture is inhuman. Murder for gain is inhuman. [e]Rape is inhuman, and by extension, sex with a minor is inhuman.[/e]
I don't know if the people doing it are necessarily inhuman. They may do an inhuman thing. But I don't think anyone can do something that permanently removes themselves from the ranks of the human race. But I believe in an infinite atonement for sin.
[ September 17, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
While I don't think that pedophiles are inhuman, I sometimes feel that they are.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I want to change it... I'm so tired of things like that I could cry. Even if it didn't affect me directly it would drive me crazy. Why do you think I spent so much time arguing on places like the CWFA bulletin board? I don't care if it's human nature. That's no excuse. It has to change and that is all there is to it. People who say that society is being destroyed by gays, lesbians, bi people and trans people don't understand that it has ALREADY been destroyed because of the intolerance!
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I believe I agree with you (except for that infinite atonement part), pooka, but I can understand how one might feel a pedophile is inhuman. And thus I imagine, in the same way, one might feel a homosexual is inhuman.
[ September 17, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"Consenting adults."
Violate either condition - consenting and/or adults and that's when the entire scenario begins to unravel.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Xap, I have to disagree. Children are victims. Gay men are consenting adults. It is the youth in children, their vulnerability, that sickens us.
We might find homosexual sex squicky, but we all acknowledge that "squicky" implies an irrational response. The moral disgust at a pedophile is far more similar to disgust at acts of violence, while being squicked at homosexuality is more like being disgusted by someone who likes to eat live earthworms. (Incidentally, it is my understanding that many homosexuals are similarly squicked out by heterosexual sex.)
You may believe that it is a sin (as do I) but only in the same way that two consenting adults having sex outside marriage is a sin. One does not have victims any more than does the other.
[ September 17, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker.
Opinions differ, Bev. Of my buddy's peer group, most of them have been with a woman at least once, usually because they were trying to live a lie or convince themselves they were straight.
My friend, however, has never been with a woman, even though he has never failed to draw every woman's attention in whatever room he entered, to my eternal amusement.
And we both accept we find the details of each other's sexual tastes a tad squicky, but that just means we can eyeball a couple and divide the spoils evenly.
-Trevor
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Children are victims. Gay men are consenting adults.
So sex with children would be okay whenever they consent? I suspect you don't actually believe that. I suspect you'd still consider it wrongful even if the child fully understood what he or she was doing (something that can't even be said for many adults who have sex) and chose to do it willingfully.
quote:We might find homosexual sex squicky, but we all acknowledge that "squicky" implies an irrational response.
We ALL do? I bet those people who are calling homosexuals "inhuman" do not acknowledge that.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually Xap, I don't believe children have the capacity to make that choice.
-Trevor
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Sex with a minor is taboo for the same reason selling cigarettes or alcohol to a minor is taboo: Minors aren't believed to have the wisdom/experiance to fully understand the consequences. Therefore, gay sex between consenting partners and sex with minors are very, very, very different things. Most obviously the part where one is illegal and one is not.
This whole bigotry thing drives me crazy. It's one thing to have a dissenting opinion, but could we at least keep our hate-filled bile to ourselves? IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK!?!
Apparently. lets all get along.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Actually Xap, I don't believe children have the capacity to make that choice.
Oh come on... you might as well say adults don't have the capacity to choose to have gay sex, and thus gay sex is wrong. That's just defining away the problem.
After all, I'm sure there are cases where children DID in fact agree willingly to do it. In fact, I know for certain there are cases of TWO kids choosing to have sex with one another - obviously one of them at least had to have made a choice - they both can't be forcing the other against the other's will. We can say their choice isn't really a choice because they are a kid, but who are we kidding?
[ September 18, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Poor choice of words in the last sentence, Xap.
As a society, we do not recognize a minor's ability to make certain decisions. We define this recognition in the form of laws designed to regulate what a minor can and cannot do - drinking, smoking and voting, for example.
If an adult chooses to engage in behavior in specifically outlawed, that is well within his or her prerogative to do so without sanction or consequence. When the same adult chooses to perform an act that is specifically proscribed by society, he or she is then bound by the sanctions levied by society.
The homosexual adult, like any adult, is recognized as having the capacity and ability to make decisions without the need of a parent or guardian, provided certain criteria are met. That criteria is a uniform standard that is applied regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.
If you want to argue morality, my morality runs along these lines: "As long as it happens between consenting adults, I don't care. Violate either requirement and I feel I must take issue."
The criticism falls thusly: a homosexual person engages in a consentual act with another person.
A pedophile assaults, molests and/or rapes a child who, by law, is unable to consent or has the capacity to consent.
One is clearly worse than the other, even if we were to assume homosexuality was indeed bad.
-Trevor
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: I believe I agree with you (except for that infinite atonement part), pooka, but I can understand how one might feel a pedophile is inhuman. And thus I imagine, in the same way, one might feel a homosexual is inhuman.
Xap... please, please, please, PLEASE tell me you ARE NOT comparing homesexuals to pedophiles... cause it sure as heck looks like you are... and if you are ... Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
He's trying to draw a parallel in how people might think of homosexuals as inhuman the same way we think of as pedophiles as inhuman.
I don't think he's preaching the school of thought that proclaims all homosexuals are child molesters and pedophiles.
Edit: And doing it badly, in my opinion.
-Trevor
[ September 19, 2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think he is saying that in the eyes of these people homosexuals are as depraved as pedophiles Which is completely wrong, but try telling them that! I have! I failed miserably.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap... please, please, please, PLEASE tell me you ARE NOT comparing homesexuals to pedophiles... cause it sure as heck looks like you are... and if you are ...
I am. I was asked why someone could consider other people 'inhuman' for being homosexuals. My answer is, in the same way many consider people 'inhuman' for being pedophiles. The fact that the mere comparison of a pedophile to a homosexual would induce the makes me suspect that you can understand why one might be angry enough to call someone "inhuman" for giving into certain sexual desires they have.
quote:If you want to argue morality, my morality runs along these lines: "As long as it happens between consenting adults, I don't care. Violate either requirement and I feel I must take issue."
The criticism falls thusly: a homosexual person engages in a consentual act with another person.
A pedophile assaults, molests and/or rapes a child who, by law, is unable to consent or has the capacity to consent.
So that is where you draw the line between dangerously harmful and acceptable-even-if-disliked.
Now imagine how you'd feel if you felt we should not legally recognize an adult's right to be gay. Imagine if you drew the line with homosexuals being where you have pedophiles now - on the dangerously harmful side. THAT'S how someone can consider gay people inhuman... their line is in a different spot.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Tres:
quote:The fact that the mere comparison of a pedophile to a homosexual would induce the makes me suspect that you can understand why one might be angry enough to call someone "inhuman" for giving into certain sexual desires they have.
Pedophiles aren't "inhuman" (if that's what they are) because they give into their sexual desires but because their sexual desires harm innocent children. Where's the victim in a consensual act of adult gay sex?
-
Then again, I can understand why one might be angry enough to call someone "inhuman" for etc. etc. It isn't difficult to understand: the reason is that people are irrational and quick to anger and often believe crazy things for no good reason. Ta-da.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Pedophiles aren't "inhuman" (if that's what they are) because they give into their sexual desires but because their sexual desires harm innocent children.
And those who have such strong feels about homosexuals could just as easily say homosexuals aren't "inhuman" because they give into their sexual desires but because their sexual desires are harmful to society and totally against God's plan.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Xap,
Only if we accept the ideas of God and that He has a plan.
Harmful to society is debatable, harmful to the children is not.
I can rationally analyze why one group of people has felt the need to hate another, even if I don't agree with it - sometimes I can even empathize and side with one group or the other.
This is not one of those times.
-Trevor
Edit: As to your point on Law, in US society you can argue the Law doesn't recognize a person's right to be gay, although active measures are not taken to prohibit such behavior.
However, if two grown men or two grown women wish to take sexual pleasure from each other, I still don't care because they are adults and can make their own decisions.
At no point does this excuse adults from raping or otherwise taking advantage of children because the standard is not the same and cannot be applied in two different cases.
[ September 19, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Only if we accept the ideas of God and that He has a plan.
Harmful to society is debatable, harmful to the children is not.
Yes, but (I am assuming) these people DO accept those things.
And also... harmful to the children IS debateable. It's been debated by NAMBLA. (sp?) What you mean to say is that YOU don't think it need be debated, and I suspect most who think homosexuals are "inhuman" probably believe the wrongness of homosexuality is beyond debate too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Harmful to society is debatable, harmful to the children is not.
I wanted to chime in on this particular portion of the discussion. Harmful to children IS debated. NAMBLA and others make their case on a civil rights ground - denying children the ability to choose to have sex.
I think their argument is odious, but it can't be dismissed - it must be refuted (although not here). The general public attitude that sex with children is obviously wrong is what allows these predators to operate on the scale they do.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: The general public attitude that sex with children is obviously wrong is what allows these predators to operate on the scale they do.
Can you elaborate on this, please?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not the attitude that people think sex with children is wrong that causes problems - I think this is the proper attitude to have. Rather, it's the acceptance of this proposition as obvious that causes problems.
This causes two probelms. First, it causes people to seriously underestimate the number of such predators, because they "know" that most everyone agrees with their assessment that sex with children is wrong. If it's "obviously" wrong, then the people who don't agree must be "sick." The problem with this assessent is that it ignores the vast number of people out there who participate in the sexual exploitation of children simply out of greed. Worldwide, there are 1 million children drawn into sexual exploitation each year according to http://www.freethechildren.org/youthinaction/sexual_exploitation.htm -- the numbers are staggering.
Until people start viewing this not as an aberration but instead as a multi-billion dollar business with organized particpants, the framework needed to protect children will not be properly oriented.
The second problem is that denying the humanity of these people makes it harder to stop them and hold them accountable. If someone is inhuman, it means "real humans" can't truly understand them. It means the full force of human intuition and prediction is not brought to bear on apprehending them. De-humanizing them and not investigating their reasons why sex with children is OK makes it harder to understand them, harder to predict what they will do, and harder to defend our children from them.
It also allows NAMBLA to exist in it's cozy world with clear consciences that they are simply helping these children experience pleasures denied them by a cruel world. There lies must be met head on, not dismissed as insanity.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thank you, Dag.
quote: De-humanizing them and not investigating their reasons why sex with children is OK makes it harder to understand them, harder to predict what they will do, and harder to defend our children from them.
Don't you think, though, that there are professionals whose job it is to do this, and who in fact do, and that it's more of the populace at large that simply dismisses them without trying to understand them? In other words, just because our populace at large does not critically examine their pov, does it actually follow that nothing is being done to protect our children in this way?
Also, is the standard line is that pedophilia is an aberration, doesn't saying so make it somewhat true? In other words, does arguing NAMBLA's premises grant them legitimacy, in at least some eyes?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Two good points.
As to the professionals, there are such people, although not enough. The problem is that people need to have predictive capability of such things. If they think, "Pedophiles are people who think it's OK to have sex with children," then all the aspects of their understanding of human behavior are available to them in making predictions. If they think, "Pedophiles are inhuman monsters," then they have no basis for predicting behavior. All too often I see statements about molestors such as, "He seemed so normal." That's the point - they are normal, except for one thing. It's a big thing, I'll grant you, but the expectation that molestors are somehow different in identifiable ways makes us all a little more careless in assessing situations where abuse is a possibility. I'm not advocating people be paranoid; I'm simply advocating they don't short-circuit their judgment with overbroad generalizations.
As to the second point, this is a philosophical divide. I've always thought the best response to "bad" speech is more speech. This includes racism, sex with children, and any other topic. The real danger here is that someone with an inclination toward molestation, but who has struggled to avoid doing it based on societal norms and morality, might be convinced by NAMBLA propaganda. There must be some presence that directly refutes them.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: All too often I see statements about molestors such as, "He seemed so normal." That's the point - they are normal, except for one thing. It's a big thing, I'll grant you, but the expectation that molestors are somehow different in identifiable ways makes us all a little more careless in assessing situations where abuse is a possibility.
*nod*
That makes sense.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And people will offer to debate whether or not the Holocaust actually happened.
Until I calm down, however, I will withdraw from this thread.
-Trevor
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Hold on now.... I'm going to have to disagree with you on the statement that sex with children is obviously wrong. In fact, I would argue there is nothing necessarily morally wrong with it in all cases - or at least not more so than other supposedly "squicky" acts like homosexuality and such. The case of a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old having sex, for instance, should prove this. Yes, there is something legally wrong with that picture, because the law is forced to draw a line somewhere. However, in a practical moral sense, there should be nothing wrong with that situation - I suspect 17-year-olds make choices like that willingly all the time.
This is why, IMHO, the traditional justification for our anti-child-sex laws is easily one of the most irrational justifications in mainstream acceptance these days - which in turn is why it's one of my favorite counterexamples to use when people complain about how other people are irrational. What's bizarre about that traditional justification is that most people insist on claiming child sex is morally wrong in all instances, rather than only in instances where it is in a practical sense rape. And in order to do this, the argument normally is that ALL instances of child sex are, practically speaking, rape - that it is physically impossible for a child to agree to sex.
The problem with this line of argument is that it defies reality pretty directly. It is simply too easy to find a counterexample. The 17-year-old and 19-year-old is a good one. You can legally define that as whatever you want, but in real moral terms there are plenty of relationships between people of those ages that are equal and in no way resemble rape. Another counterexample is the one I gave earlier, involving two children choosing to have sex with one another. This actually happens too - and it simply makes no sense to try to claim they are each raping the other. At the very least one of them must had chosen to do it. Or, if you want an actual case, I can give you one. I had a friend who was 17 and dating a 30-year-old. I considered this rather weird (for one thing, I didn't know how to hang out with 30-year-olds), but their relationship was not unequal. If they had sex, I would have had no doubt that it was mutually accepted. To say my friend was being raped, even if true in a legal sense, would be blatantly false in any real sense.
Now, at that point people traditionally claim it's a matter of law - which is partially true. But we can define laws however we want. We could legally define pi to be 7 if we wanted to, although that would be silly. But we do legally define sex under a certain age as rape. What this does not mean, however, is that it IS rape, in a practical moral sense. What actually is, is regardless of what the law says it is, and the multitude of counterexamples show that it is, in fact, possible for children to have sex without it being rape in a moral sense.
Thus the true reason we have laws against child sex, in my view, is not because child sex is ALWAYS abuse in a moral sense, but because it is abuse far too often to warrant allowing it to be legal. This is the normal reason we ban things. We don't normally say that there can't possibly be a morally legitimate use for owning a bomb, for instance. We ban owning illegal bombs because the legitimate uses are FAR outweighed by the potential abuse from it. We ban drinking and driving not because it ALWAYS leads to crashes, but because it far too often does. This too, I think, is why we ban sex with minors. It's not that sex with minors is by necessity always rape. It's because such behavior is rape far too often to make it legal.
I don't see how NAMBLA could argue against that stance. There's too much evidence of the dangers of legalizing sex with minors.
However, people don't take that stance. Instead, they typically take the more extreme stance - that sex with children is by definition always rape and always wrong. Why do they do this? I have two ideas why...
Firstly, I think people are afraid to leave moral loopholes. They are afraid that if they don't say sex with children is always rape, someone will claim their case is an exception and use that excuse to rape someone. This actually may be true, but I don't think that's a good reason to try and make a more absolute case than there actually is. It's like Democrats who try to argue Bush is absolutely wrong on everything he says. It does not make a better case if you overstate it to the degree that big falsities appear in it - or so I'd argue.
Secondly, I suspect that there is a good bit of "squickiness" factor involved here too. I think that even in a specific hypothetical case where a child wants to have sex as a adult, knows what that means, and chooses to do so - even in that case many people would STILL consider that wrong. Even if in that case no harm was committed to the child. Why would they still think this wrong, if no harm occurred? My suspicion is that it's the same reason people dislike homosexuality even when no harm occurs to any parties - and I'm not saying that that reason's necessarily a bad one (although I disagree with it in the case of homosexuality.) But I think people don't want to admit that that is the way they feel, and so they try to find harm even in the hypothetical unharmful exception.
This is a problem, because such exceptions can occur - like my 17-year-old friend. Was her boyfriend a monster?
[ September 19, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And people will offer to debate whether or not the Holocaust actually happened.
And when we stop responding to such offers with evidence and reasoning and start responding with shrill, "If you deny that you're just an anti-semite who doesn't deserve a response," eventually the deniers will begin to go unanswered.
While I doubt there are many Holocaust deniers who are not anti-semitic, refusing to meet their claims leaves them the field unopposed.
Dagonee
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
The real problem here would be defining the word 'child'. The rape and statutory rape laws are in place for 18-year-olds because that is when, legaly, children 'come of age': They can vote, marry without parental consent, et cetera.
Xap, in the case of your friend, I personally don't think that he was a monster. While I certainly think that it was rather strange, your friend was probably in many ways an adult. As Correlle's father told her when she turned 17: "You're pretty set in your ways, the only thing I can hope now is that I taught you right."
I have seen from experience the statch rape laws in action: A few of my more minor aquaintances from high school had parents who were furious when they found out they were sexually active. It may have been the case that one person was takikng advantage of the other, but it certainly was consentual in all the cases I personally saw unfold. I also know that if Insanity Plea had laid a single finger on me before I turned 18, my father would have called the cops.
You pose an interesting question, Xap, and while initially I didn't see why pedophila was in any way related to homosexuality, it dawned on me that you were trying to make a point, to show that this is the extreme that the guy in free speech alley saw it as.
So here's my honest opinion: Pedophiles who like young (ie: 0-12 or 13) children should be prosecuted. After that, it should be determined on the maturity of the minor. I only say this because I had sexually active friends in middle school, some of which were not mature and were used by their boyfriends, and some of which certainly knew what they were getting themselves into.
I would also like to thank everyone who has posted in this thread for not calling names and keeping a reasonably level head on such a blurred and passionate topic. I would especially like to thank Trevor who bowed out gracefully to give himself time to cool down. This is why I started the thread in the first place--to discuss things objectively.
Thank you, all of you.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Keep in mind that statutory rape charges do not apply when two teenagers of similar age have sex. For example, a 16-year-old would not be charged with rape for having sex with a 15-year-old. IIRC, the other condition besides being under 18 is a difference in age of like three years. Another (related) assumption that I see in this thread that I believe is incorrect is that statutory rape laws are merely a statement about a child's ability to give consent. Given what I noted above, they are a statement about an adult's ability to coerce a child. And so, the fact that two 15-year-olds can have sex does not raise any paradoxes, nor does it prove that a teenager (or a child) can give meaningful consent to an adult.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Icarus, that isn't true in all places. I got accused of it when I had just turned 18, and she was 17. Turns out that under the law at that time, if a parent could (and did) claim them as a dependant the age of concent was 18. TSo unless they were willing and able to declare themselves emancipated, and move out...
Funny part of it was that I had never had sex with her at all, and her parents accused me of getting her pregnant because they had never met any of her other boyfirends besides me.
It still scared me to death, though. How do you prove a negitive? Even a paternity test can't help you there.
She had cheated on me, and I found out and broke up with her. We had only been dating for a month or so, but it pissed me off.
Next thing I know I the police call my house (am I was still living with my parents) and ask me to come down to the station for questioning.
She never said it was me, but her parents were SURE ti was me, because we had been dating. Turns out she was pregnant, and wouldn't tell them who the father was.
Eventually I got out of it (she flew into a rage and told them off, thank God), but it left me pretty scared.
I also said the rudest thing I have ever said to anyone to her mom and dad at the police station, after an hour of questioning. lol.
So the laws differ significantly from state to state on that.
Xap: I see your point, but it is too hard to determine it case by case...so if we draw a line, and say this is the point....
Then everyone over it is wrong.
It's no more random than a lot of laws. Then older the kid, the less offensive it is to most of us, but even a mature 13 year old can't fathom the possible repercussions...not really.
Kwea (edited, becasue I left out the dependant rule, which is why they were able to go after me)
[ September 20, 2004, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The age of consent and details surrounding it vary from state to state. For instance, in Indiana the age of consent is 16.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Technically speaking, pedophilia only applies to the desire to have sex with pre-pubescent children. The desire to have sex with adolescents is called something else. Starts with an “e” I think.
Might not make a substantive difference to the conversation, but there you go.
And also, I’d like to underline what Icky said. The question isn’t really whether the child is old enough to consent. It’s whether the balance of power between the child and the adult is so far off that meaningful consent is unlikely in that situation. It’s the same reason therapists can’t have sex with their clients. It’s not that the clients are intrinsically unable to make decisions for themselves, it’s that the potential for abuse is too great. Likewise in an adult/non-adult relationship – the power differential is such that the potential for abuse is enormous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The age of consent for statutory rape charges is a classic line-drawing legal question. Almost everyone agrees there should be one. Most would agree that 10-12 is and below is always worthy of criminal sanction, and most would agree that 18 or over is not.
The 8-6 years in the middle, though, make a significant difference. This is the type of issue where we rely on legislatures to reflect the will of the community.
Add on age difference clauses and there's a lot of room for difference.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Speaking of counterexamples to the idea that children can't choose to have sex with an adult, consider this bizarre story in the news: Boy, 11, charged in sexual assault of senior
quote:An 11-year-old boy was charged Wednesday with sexually assaulting a 76-year-old neighborhood woman in her home as three of his friends stood watch.
Now, if we are serious about saying that it is impossible for a child to choose to have sex, then we cannot blame this child at all for what he did. After all, he could not have chosen to rape the woman, since as a child he is incapable of making that decision. But that raises the question, if the child did not choose to do it himself, who forced him to? Did the elderly woman rape him? Should we arrest her?
No, that all is absurd. The truth is, this child DID choose to do what he did, proving that children can in fact choose to have sex with adults without being forced into it - regardless of what the law claims on the matter. And I suspect, in this case, the law will hold the boy responsible for his choice. I certainly would think it should.
Or does anyone think we should arrest the elderly woman on rape charges?
[ September 22, 2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Have you read the posts where we addressed the issue of children's choices?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Yes. You said this:
quote:Another (related) assumption that I see in this thread that I believe is incorrect is that statutory rape laws are merely a statement about a child's ability to give consent. Given what I noted above, they are a statement about an adult's ability to coerce a child. And so, the fact that two 15-year-olds can have sex does not raise any paradoxes, nor does it prove that a teenager (or a child) can give meaningful consent to an adult.
Whereas this is a case of a child and an adult, not two children, which illustrates that a child CAN give meaningful consent - and can go further than that, forcing himself on an adult.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
How is that representative of meaningful consent? How is this any different than laws about when a child is deemed old enough to drive, or drink alcohol, or vote? In our society we value our children being sexually protected from those who are of adult age until they themselves have had the time to grow and mature.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, do you deny it? Do you deny that the children have consented to what they are doing in this case? Or can you find another party who is forcing the child to do it?
Earlier in this thread it was argued that all instances of adults having sex with children are by necessity rape, because it is impossible for a child to consent to it. If that were true then this, being an instance of an adult and child having sex, would have to be a rape of the child. Just tell me, is the child being raped here?
It's akin to banning smoking for children and then claiming that makes it impossible for a child to ever smoke. That claim would be easily refuted by any example of a child smoking - either in defiance of the law or in accordance with it.
You may say it's illegal for all children to consent to sex, which is true, but to say it is impossible for a child to consent to sex is something far more difficult to prove. That entails showing that every possible instance of sex between an adult and child, including this one, is a rape of the child.
[ September 23, 2004, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Xap, you've got to be intentionally ignoring a fundamental part of the requirement -- informed consent. And I find it very easy to deny that the children were sufficiently informed to make consent, somehow.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, then answer these questions: Was the child in the above story giving informed consent to having sex with that old woman when he forced himself on her?
And if not, does that mean the child was raped by that woman?
[ September 23, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
As much as I disagree with what the original person's message (inhuman, etc.).
He has a right to voice his opinion and has as much a right to expect it to be heard and respected as someone who is pro gay.
I'm not defending his view. Just his right to freedom of speech.
And I would point out the hatred aimed at him by those on this thread as uncalled for as well.
Hatred is just not a good thing to answer hatred with.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Xap, it is obvious that children are *capable* of giving consent. The idea is that they are too young to be making these sorts of decisions *well*. They don't have the wisdom or the experience necessary. Certainly this boy knowingly did something that hurt someone else, and the blame is upon him--not her.
But I also say that in the eternal scheme of things, a lot of blame also lies upon the shoulders of those who assisted in turning him into the monster that he is. Whether it was neglect and/or abuse, it is not natural for an 11-year-old boy to rape an old woman. (Sounds like something out of A Clockwork Orange....)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But the argument being used earlier was that children CAN'T give consent, and therefore any sex with children MUST be rape. I would say it is obvious that children are capable of giving consent too - which is why I find this argument so problematic.
And truthfully, if it comes to making these decisions *well* I don't think adults, especially younger adults, are all that much better. Maybe we should not allow ANYONE to have sex unless they take a test first, to prove they know what they are getting into....
[ September 23, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xap, what you're missing is that "consent" contains within it the idea of being informed and capable of understanding the ramifications of the act being consented to.
The proper word for measuring the 11-year old rapist's state of mind is not consent but culpability. Did he appreciate the nature of his act enough to know it was wrong?
Now, I don't know if an 11-year old should be held criminally liable, although he needs to be locked up somewhere. But the understanding required to be found culpable is qualitatively and quantitatively different than the understanding required to provide consent.
11-year-olds can generally be thought to know it is wrong to hit, it is wrong to force people to do things they don't want to, etc. This does not mean they can understand the ramifications of sex enough to meaningfully consent.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He has a right to voice his opinion and has as much a right to expect it to be heard and respected as someone who is pro gay.
This raises an interesting point. What does it mean to "respect" an opinion?
By any normal use of the word "respect," I do not respect this person's opinion that homosexuals are inhuman. I hold it in zero esteem and think it has no redeeming features to it. I respect his right to say it. I respect my right to call his opinion on the matter evil and ill-informed.
Also, does he really have a right to be heard? Or just a right to be given an opportunity to be heard? If I wasn't in the mood to engage and debate the little pissant, I'd move on after the first sentence. I'd generally oppose him being shouted down, and certainly oppose him being threatened implicitly or explicitly. But his right is really to say something in a manner in which it could be heard, not to actually be heard.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap, what you're missing is that "consent" contains within it the idea of being informed and capable of understanding the ramifications of the act being consented to.
So the boy didn't consent to the sex he was forcing on the woman? Does that or does that not mean the boy was raped? Nobody will answer this. Rape is sex without consent no?
Incidently, if consent contains with it the idea of being informed, shouldn't all uninformed adults be incapable of consenting to sex as well? A while back someone posted a story about a pregnant woman who did not realize sex could lead to pregnancy. Even children (older ones) know that. Doesn't your claim suggest that such a woman could not have consented? And doesn't it suggest that whoever the father of the baby is must be a rapist, since he had sex with a woman who was incapable of consenting to it?
And again, I'm not talking the law. The law can say whatever we tell it to say. What I'm talking about is what actually is accurate, ethically speaking.
[ September 23, 2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The law says, "So few children can truly consent to sex, and it's so difficult to identify the few who can, that we will protect the vast majority of children by creating an irrebutable presumption that a child does not consent to sex." The real-world reality is contained within that statement. "A child cannot consent to sex" is shorthand for that.
The child was a rapist. He was not raped because the woman lacked the cuplability necessary to be a rapist (she had no purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence that made this act a crime).
Consent is not an issue here, because no one consented to anything. For there to be consent, there has to be an implicit or explicit request or offer from the other party. Here the woman did nothing for this child to consent to.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: So the boy didn't consent to the sex he was forcing on the woman? Does that or does that not mean the boy was raped? Nobody will answer this. Rape is sex without consent no?
What am I, chopped liver? *I* answered your question. Yes, he gave consent. (Or perhaps Dagonee's answer is much better than mine.) But I'm sorry, an 11-year-old is too young to have the wisdom and experience to *meaningfully* give consent. As for your statement that young adults aren't much better off, that is not true. They are better off. But of course, this is an arbitrary line. It isn't like something magically happens when you turn a certain age.
Do we give people tests to see if they can vote or drink? No. We do test drivers. I imagine there are reasons for giving a test in one situation and not in another. I don't like the idea of whether or not you can have sex being legislated.
[ September 23, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, he didn't give consent, any more than you give consent when you brush your teeth in the morning. Consent is "to give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree." There was no proposal to agree to, and no agreement between them.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, after reading your response, I edited mine just a little. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Dag,
quote:The law says, "So few children can truly consent to sex, and it's so difficult to identify the few who can, that we will protect the vast majority of children by creating an irrebutable presumption that a child does not consent to sex." The real-world reality is contained within that statement. "A child cannot consent to sex" is shorthand for that.
"A child cannot consent to sex" and "few children can truly consent to sex, and it's so difficult to identify the few who can" are very different statements. They contradict one another. Thus, I wouldn't use that shorthand if I were you, because you aren't saying what you mean.
quote:Consent is not an issue here, because no one consented to anything. For there to be consent, there has to be an implicit or explicit request or offer from the other party. Here the woman did nothing for this child to consent to.
Okay, so as long as the child is the one who suggests it and the adult requests nothing, the child doesn't have to consent to anything, and thus child-adult sex is then okay?
beverly,
quote:But I'm sorry, an 11-year-old is too young to have the wisdom and experience to *meaningfully* give consent. As for your statement that young adults aren't much better off, that is not true. They are better off. But of course, this is an arbitrary line. It isn't like something magically happens when you turn a certain age.
Let me repeat the example I gave to Dag... "A while back someone posted a story about a pregnant woman who did not realize sex could lead to pregnancy. Even children (older ones) know that. Doesn't your claim suggest that such a woman could not have consented? And doesn't it suggest that whoever the father of the baby is must be a rapist, since he had sex with a woman who was incapable of consenting to it?"
So, again, was that rather uninformed girl (for all practical purposes) raped, simply because she was not informed enough to give consent to sex?
[ September 23, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
While it is very distressing that she didn't know enough about sex to know that it can create babies, there is more to being "informed" than that. Part of it is being of a certain age that you know yourself better and the world better. That they are capable of having an adult intimate relationship because they are wise enough to do so. That wisdom is far more than about that sex can make you pregnant--though it is astounding that she happened to not know that. How that happened, I can't imagine.
That there are people older than the arbitrary age that don't know very much doesn't make it a bad arbitrary line. There will always be exceptions--and even a test couldn't catch them all. But the majority of people are fine with the line being where it is. How would you change the way things currently are? The idea of taking a "test" to see if you are ready to have sex is ridiculous.
[ September 23, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: A child cannot consent to sex" and "few children can truly consent to sex, and it's so difficult to identify the few who can" are very different statements. They contradict one another. Thus, I wouldn't use that shorthand if I were you, because you aren't saying what you mean.
There’s an implied legality. It’s a fact in America today that children of a certain age CANNOT consent to sex, simply because we don’t allow them to. So given the current legal situation, it is an accurate statement. It’s only when the possibility of a regime without that rule exists that we need to clarify.
Just like when someone says, “You can’t take that; it’s mine!” We all know that you may have the physical capability to take it. The can’t clearly refers to the permissive aspect, not the ability.
quote:Okay, so as long as the child is the one who suggests it and the adult requests nothing, the child doesn't have to consent to anything, and thus child-adult sex is then okay?
No, because sex absent consent is rape. For sex not to become rape, it requires mutual consent. Both the proposal and the response can be explicit or implicit. It’s not like a contract offer and acceptance – it’s a two-way street.
quote: A while back someone posted a story about a pregnant woman who did not realize sex could lead to pregnancy. Even children (older ones) know that. Doesn't your claim suggest that such a woman could not have consented? And doesn't it suggest that whoever the father of the baby is must be a rapist, since he had sex with a woman who was incapable of consenting to it?
If the woman was mentally incompetent, she could not consent. If she didn’t know because of mere ignorance, then she is the beneficiary of the slightly over-inclusive rule which says, “Persons of a certain age are presumed to be able to consent to sex.”
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
On this whole idea that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is rape, the term is "statutory rape" meaning that it is only rape because of a certain arbitrary age limit. The law is designed to protect someone young and impressionable below a certain age limit from the predatory behavior of someone who would wield their age and wisdom over the other. That this behavior still happens between a 20 year old and a 26 year old is besides the case. According to the law, a 20 year old is *expected* to be wise enough to not be taken in by a 26 year old. Does it still happen? Sure. But by law, that person is *expected* to be wise enough. Again, it is arbitrary. I don't see a better way of doing it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
beverly,
quote:That there are people older than the arbitrary age that don't know very much doesn't make it a bad arbitrary line. There will always be exceptions--and even a test couldn't catch them all.
I understand why we may need an arbitrary line for the purpose of passing laws. But arbitrary lines drawn by humans do not extend to reality.
The question at hand here is not whether we should change the law. The question is, is it correct to say all adult-sex is wrong, morally? People argued earlier that it was always wrong, because children are never capable of consenting. If there are exceptions where children ARE wise enough to consent, however, that would prove that logic false - and it would mean adult-sex is only morally wrong when the child does not consent, but morally acceptable when the child does consent - it would mean the child is not necessarily always a victim.
Dag,
quote:There’s an implied legality. It’s a fact in America today that children of a certain age CANNOT consent to sex, simply because we don’t allow them to. So given the current legal situation, it is an accurate statement. It’s only when the possibility of a regime without that rule exists that we need to clarify.
But, as I said, I'm not talking about what the legal situation is. We can make the laws however we so choose. I'm talking about the ethics of the matter - what is ACTUALLY true.
So which is actually true: "A child cannot consent to sex" or "few children can truly consent to sex, and it's so difficult to identify the few who can"?
quote:No, because sex absent consent is rape.
You are contradicting yourself. You just said the child in that article was not raped, yet you also said he did not consent. Therefore, sex absent consent is not rape, by your definitions.
quote:If the woman was mentally incompetent, she could not consent. If she didn’t know because of mere ignorance, then she is the beneficiary of the slightly over-inclusive rule which says, "Persons of a certain age are presumed to be able to consent to sex."
Again, we are talking ethics, not law. There is no need to presume anything.
So you agree that women who are mentally incompetent cannot consent. Do you also agree that this implies it is ethically wrong for anyone to have sex with someone who is "mentally incompetent"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xap, I'm describing the laws, which make use of generalities to overcome problems of proof and efficiency. The fact that I've said they're generalities means that I've acknowledge the exceptions. However, given the proportions, I'm still consistent to say people who claim young children in general can consent to sex is
quote:You are contradicting yourself. You just said the child in that article was not raped, yet you also said he did not consent. Therefore, sex absent consent is not rape, by your definitions.
Rape is a purely legal construct. So the only the legal definition of consent applies. Rape requires a mens rea of cuplability (purpose, knowledge, recklessness) which it's clear the woman didn't have. So the child was not raped, because there was no rapist.
Dagonee
[ September 23, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Xap, if you are asking me what kind of sex I think is moral the *only* sex I think is moral is married sex. But there is no way that would ever be legislated, especially since those who feel that way are far in the minority.
If you are asking me if I think adult-sex can be void of abuse, that is another matter. Though I don't think abuse is strictly the only reason for the arbitrary line. I think that there are perhaps cases, like with an 18 year old and a 17 year old, where there may be no abuse involved whatsoever, only love and mutual desire & understanding. I also think there are cases of abuse between those "of age" that do not go so far as to be "illegal" because they are far to subtle and complicated. But what does that have to do with anything?
It seems like you are innanely nitpicking for the sake of making argument rather than having a specific point--particularly any point relating to your original complaint: that it is reasonable for someone to consider homosexuals "inhuman". I don't see how that is reasonable since the only pedophiles we think of as "inhuman" are the ones who are abusive, evil, monsters. I don't think of the 18 year old who sleeps with the 17 year old as inhuman--just unwise. But the individual who molests 4 year olds--yeah, I might be tempted to think of them as inhuman. I don't see any correlation between these people and homosexuals.
So, now, what was your point again?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So, now, what was your point again?
My point is that people tend to claim that sex with children is not only universally illegal, but also universally monsterous because it is always rape of a child. However, if you examine the situation closer, you can see that there are many exceptions where children do consent to sex and where it is not rape. But by claiming it is monsterous in all cases, we are being unfair to those children who fall into the exceptions, in the same way it might be unfair to claim all women are bad at football. We are discriminating, unrealisticly, against children.
I mean, what if someone declared you were incapable of choosing anything because they judged you to be not wise enough?
But that's not my only point. I'd also raise the question: why do we do it? Why do we maintain a blanket hatred of this sort of behavior when we should really only hate the cases that actually are rape? I would argue, as I mentioned earlier, that a major reason why is because we feel "squicky" about child-adult sex, in the same way some feel squicky about homosexuality. We think of it as unnatural. And thus, we overextend our arguments against it to justify our dislike of it: We say it is universally monsterous when all we can really argue is that it is often monsterous.
It's quite similar to the arguments so often given by those who dislike homosexuality so much. They too have their reasons why homosexuality is bad, and those reasons make some sense, but they also usually have big holes in them that seem invisible to those who accept them. And then we ask, how can anyone think like this? How can anyone not see the fallacies in those arguments?
The truth is, the arguments aren't reasonable at all. And it isn't reasonable to consider homosexuals inhuman. But it is understandable, becasue we make similar mistakes ourselves. Pedophilia is just one particularly similar case among many many cases where we misjudge based on our gut feelings of "squickiness."
quote:Rape is a purely legal construct. So the only the legal definition of consent applies.
That's a bold claim, and I think it's false. For one thing, would rape become morally okay if we simply erased it from the lawbooks?
No - meaning it must be a concept that exists independently from the law.
Furthermore, don't you think rape existed before anti-rape laws?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point is that people tend to claim that sex with children is not only universally illegal, but also universally monsterous because it is always rape of a child.
Actually, I know few people who claim it's only the consent issue that makes it immoral. That's the legal justification for stautory rape laws, but not the only moral consideration.
quote:That's a bold claim, and I think it's false. For one thing, would rape become morally okay if we simply erased it from the lawbooks?
No - meaning it must be a concept that exists independently from the law.
Furthermore, don't you think rape existed before anti-rape laws?
Fine, it would be an uninteresting philosophical discussion anwyay. But this point was ancilliary to my explanation about the boy being unable to consent but being able to rape, and as to why he wasn't raped.
Dagonee
[ September 23, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Pedophilia is just one particularly similar case among many many cases where we misjudge based on our gut feelings of "squickiness."
I think I see what you are saying, but I don't think they are similar at all. The *vast majority* of pedophilia involves abuse and predator/victim relationships. The only ones I might argue do not are when one of the individuals has already gone through puberty (they would have to be unusually mature for their age too). And when they have, they generally are not referred to as "pedophilia".
Homosexuality lacks the "victim" and "abuse" problem. Can homosexuality have "vicitms" and "abuse"? No more so than can heterosexuality. They are equal in that respect. So, I don't see the correlation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes - I can pick an age where every single case below that is immoral (edit: AND abusive). The law is set in most cases to be over-inclusive - that is, at an age where some still are too immature and some aren't.
So people can say sex with children is always wrong (edit: AND abusive), as long as they define children conservatively.
Dagonee
[ September 23, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Actually, I know few people who claim it's only the consent issue that makes it immoral. That's the legal justification for stautory rape laws, but not the only moral consideration.
What are the other reasons?
quote: Can homosexuality have "vicitms" and "abuse"?
If one does not consent to the other, there is. It's the same rule that applies to child-adult sex.
The difference is, as you say, there are far fewer instances of that abuse in homosexual relationships than there are in child-adult relationships... for obvious reasons! People assume it's the case for the latter, but assume it's not the case for the former.
[ September 23, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: If one does not consent to the other, there is. It's the same rule that applies to child-adult sex.
Uhhh, no, it's the same as HETERO sex.
There is no consent difference between homo and hetero sex. They are identical in that respect. There is a huge consent difference between adult sex and child-adult sex. And I agree that sex with prepubescent children is always going to be abusive. Therefore, pedophilia is always abusive. It is statuatory rape that is not always abusive.
Take your 11-year-old-boy-rapist. Why would he do something like that unless he had been a victim himself? His monsterous behavoir came because he had been abused (I assume). Because, as I said, this is not normal pre-pubescent behavior.
Pre-pubescent children may experiment with each other out of curiosity, but they do not have the sex drive of post-pubescent people. If they are victimizing others--young or old, I am willing to bet it is because they themselves were victims at one time.
[ September 23, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xap, did you read the part where I said at some age, all sex with a child is abusive?
That's ALL. Not some, not most, not all but 1. All.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Uhhh, no, it's the same as HETERO sex.
Yes, it's the same as hetero sex AND the same as child-adult sex. The rule is the same for everyone: No Consent = Wrong. Consent = Okay.
quote:There is a huge consent difference between adult sex and child-adult sex.
You have to consent for both. All have times when consent is there, all have times when consent is not. What is the consent difference?
quote:Pre-pubescent children may experiment with each other out of curiosity, but they do not have the sex drive of post-pubescent people. If they are victimizing others--young or old, I am willing to bet it is because they themselves were victims at one time.
How do you know that? Maybe it was peer pressure. Maybe they just thought it was cool. Maybe these particular children were exceptions and DID have a sex drive. We can't know without more information, but each is at least hypothetically possible isn't it?
quote:Xap, did you read the part where I said at some age, all sex with a child is abusive?
What age?
There are ages where the chances of a child being able to consent become vanishingly small, but that's just a matter of assymptotally decreasing probability, not universiality.
It's like saying "there are no athletic old people" if only we define "old people" conservatively enough. Sure, that's true if you define "old people" the right way, but that doesn't mean being old prevents you from being athletic.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Take your 11-year-old-boy-rapist. Why would he do something like that unless he had been a victim himself? His monsterous behavoir came because he had been abused (I assume). Because, as I said, this is not normal pre-pubescent behavior.
Define normal, and then remember what happens if we assume. By your theory there could be no evil in the world because someone must be a victim before they can cause harm to others. Who was teh first victim?
Do I have to be murdered before I am capable of murder? Do I have to be robbed before I am capable of robbery? Do I have to be raped before I am capable of rape? No, no, and no.
Do I have to be teh victim of anything before I do something wrong? No.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The desire to have power over another is human. Being victimized is not required in order to choose to use this desire for evil. I have a hard time believing a pre-pubescent boy would choose to sexually assault someone unless they had been abused. I could be wrong--but I would be very surprised.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What age?
I'm willing to go on record that having sex with a 8-year old is always abusinve and immoral. I could argue several years older, but 8 is easy.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
And what happens if an 8-year-old comes around who is bizarrely mature, understands sex as well as the average adult, and wants to engage in those activities? If it is possible for a 9, 10, or 11 year old, why not an 8 year old? Just because it is highly unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
There are cultures where sex between adults and children is normal. I think that the reason it is not ok to do it in our society is the children who are with adults will feel shame because that is what society has taught them to feel. Not that I don't think it is icky, but I think that is society not human nature that makes me feel this way.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
NAMBLA would love to read this argument. ABSOLUTELY love it.
One thing to keep in mind. The restrictions on minors are unconsitutional if it really ever comes up for debate. It would be almost impossible to tell an Emancipated Child that he/she doesn't have the right to have sex with an Adult.
It proposes some scenarios that to ME are very, very scary, but very, very real.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xap, actually, I picked 10 and knocked 2 years off in anticipation of that argument.
Either way, I suffer no discomfort with this absolute declaration.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dude, me either.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Dag, it doesn't really matter how many years you knock off - the argument will still stand. It would take something pretty darn miraculous for a newborn to come out of the womb mature enough to consent to things, but even that still wouldn't be logically impossible. (Heck, the ancient Greeks thought their gods were born fully mature. And then there's the possibilities of reincarnation...) Thus, that line of argument doesn't hold.
As I said before, it's no less problematic than saying "Old people can't be athletic" - true in a practical sense for some definitions of "old people" but still not a valid absolute.
And not suffering discomfort over something doesn't make that thing valid - too many people have too little discomfort over too many horrible things for that to be the case.
quote:There are cultures where sex between adults and children is normal.
This is true... which begs the question: Are those societies immoral?
[ September 23, 2004, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope. Having sex even with the most advanced 8 year old ever is abusive and wrong.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Saying it twice doesn't make it more true, either. (And I know what you are thinking - neither does a third time )
Besides... I didn't say the most advanced 8-year-old ever. I'm talking about the most advanced 8-year-old possible.
[ September 23, 2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Either evolution or God (or both) made us able to reproduce at puberty. Some cultures have said that meant a person could be married and continue in the cycle of life (particularly when life expectancy was short). In nature, mating behavior and reproductive ability come together. Then I say this is a pretty good cut off date. Pre-pubescents are *always* to young to deal with sex IMO.
And I am not of the camp that thinks women should be shipped off to marriage at the first menses or men at the first wet dream. In societies where such a thing has been practiced, more was expected of them too. They were expected to act like adults by that age. Our society is not that way! I do think that occasionally a pubescent in our society might be prepared for such a thing, but that would be very rare if ever.
Kids in our society grow up with very little responsibility on their shoulders. Their childhood is extended. Whether you think this is good or not, it is the way things are. And it effects sexual readiness.
[ September 23, 2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Either way - it's wrong. For one thing, the chances are so miniscule that it would be impossible for the adult to have the requisite knowledge that it would be OK in this case. So he would be acting in an uncertain situation which is wrong 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 out of a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 without a moral degree of certainty.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
This upset me even more!![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
lets all get along.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Yes, he gave consent. (Or perhaps Dagonee's answer is much better than mine.) But I'm sorry, an 11-year-old is too young to have the wisdom and experience to *meaningfully* give consent. As for your statement that young adults aren't much better off, that is not true. They are better off. But of course, this is an arbitrary line. It isn't like something magically happens when you turn a certain age.