posted
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?
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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....)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
posted
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.
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.
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.
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
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?
posted
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.
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.”
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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"?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
