Topic: If pedophilia was culturally accepted, & without a stigma against it, how would it affect children?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #7,352
If a child consents to sex, and later reveals to an adult, of course the adult will make a big deal about it, and proceed to give the impression (whether correct, or incorrect) that this is bad. The kid will probably be sent to counseling, the police will get involved, etc. They will be told they have lost their innocence, and virginity, both abstract concepts that will be accepted by the child.
All of this will of course affect how the child saw the situation. If at first they were OK with it, or uncomfortable, by now they are horrified, and regretful.
What if the culture, and stigma was gone for it, then? What if no one made a big deal, and the event was forgotten?
Physical damage can be avoided, and psychological damage can be averted with a cultural change.
Of course, today any sex act would be psychologically harmful.
All of this will of course affect how the child saw the situation. If at first they were OK with it, or uncomfortable, by now they are horrified, and regretful.
What if the culture, and stigma was gone for it, then? What if no one made a big deal, and the event was forgotten?
Physical damage can be avoided, and psychological damage can be averted with a cultural change.
Of course, today any sex act would be psychologically harmful.
grey !C.MxxuCiTo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #128,488
Lots of anal fissures, vaginal scaring.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,490
Those poor, persecuted pedos. They're all just misunderstood, aren't they? They're all lovely chaps and model bloody citizens really.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,491
@128,488 (grey !C.MxxuCiTo)
> implying anal sex
If an adolescant engages with an adult, they don't necessarily have vaginal tears either.
There are also means of sex (masturbation, oral) that do not result in physical harm.
For this thread, let's stick the psychological aspect.
> implying anal sex
If an adolescant engages with an adult, they don't necessarily have vaginal tears either.
There are also means of sex (masturbation, oral) that do not result in physical harm.
For this thread, let's stick the psychological aspect.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,492
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,494
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,495
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Physical damage isn't any less important. It's still harming a child.
Like I just said, physical damage can be avoided a number of ways.
Assume these methods are used (if they weren't, the courts would be involved).
> Physical damage isn't any less important. It's still harming a child.
Like I just said, physical damage can be avoided a number of ways.
Assume these methods are used (if they weren't, the courts would be involved).
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,499
The closest thing to that ever happening is the acceptance of Ephaebophilia.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,501
Kids that get molested and keep it secret (due to shame or fear or just a lack of understanding of the situation) Pretty much always end up psychologically hurt. A young cousin of mine got molested by a slightly older cousin who had the same happen to him by an older gentleman in the family. And the man who did it to him, did it to someone else as well who ended up turning to drugs and the like as they got into their teenage years. They kept it secret as well and got very...crazy, to put it bluntly. They were psychologically scarred from that.
In the OP, you mentioned it being consensual. But really, could a child really understand what they're agreeing to?
In the OP, you mentioned it being consensual. But really, could a child really understand what they're agreeing to?
Katerina Shcherbatskaya joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,502
No amount of cultural change can remove the power imbalance that makes adult-child sex inherently exploitative.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,503
> If pedophilia was culturally accepted
notgoingtohappen.jpeg
notgoingtohappen.jpeg
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,504
@128,501 (E)
> Kids that get molested and keep it secret (due to shame or fear or just a lack of understanding of the situation) Pretty much always end up psychologically hurt. A young cousin of mine got molested by a slightly older cousin who had the same happen to him by an older gentleman in the family. And the man who did it to him, did it to someone else as well who ended up turning to drugs and the like as they got into their teenage years. They kept it secret as well and got very...crazy, to put it bluntly. They were psychologically scarred from that.
A good example of the cultural pressure that is put onto children. It sounds like this wasn't consensual either.
> In the OP, you mentioned it being consensual. But really, could a child really understand what they're agreeing to?
Most kids understand by 11-13 what sex is and how it works. With a health class in school, even earlier and more accurate information.
> Kids that get molested and keep it secret (due to shame or fear or just a lack of understanding of the situation) Pretty much always end up psychologically hurt. A young cousin of mine got molested by a slightly older cousin who had the same happen to him by an older gentleman in the family. And the man who did it to him, did it to someone else as well who ended up turning to drugs and the like as they got into their teenage years. They kept it secret as well and got very...crazy, to put it bluntly. They were psychologically scarred from that.
A good example of the cultural pressure that is put onto children. It sounds like this wasn't consensual either.
> In the OP, you mentioned it being consensual. But really, could a child really understand what they're agreeing to?
Most kids understand by 11-13 what sex is and how it works. With a health class in school, even earlier and more accurate information.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,506
@128,502 (Katerina Shcherbatskaya)
@128,503 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
Culture changes all the time. At one point pedophilia was accepted by many cultures.
It's only very recently that homosexual marriage broke the 50% mark in the US. If you had talked about that hypothetically happening to your grandparents in their days, they would probably say it would never happen.
People seem to forget how very recently homosexuality changed in the public eye.
The civil rights act passed in 1964- that is only 47 years ago!
Culture is changing faster than ever.
@128,503 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
Culture changes all the time. At one point pedophilia was accepted by many cultures.
It's only very recently that homosexual marriage broke the 50% mark in the US. If you had talked about that hypothetically happening to your grandparents in their days, they would probably say it would never happen.
People seem to forget how very recently homosexuality changed in the public eye.
The civil rights act passed in 1964- that is only 47 years ago!
Culture is changing faster than ever.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,507
@OP
> If a child consents to sex,
> Of course, today any sex act would be psychologically harmful.
So we take the case of that 3 year old, who is in no position to consent to anything - or the case of a 12 year old who has been so fucked up by parents they do not know right from wrong.
Bottom line is that a human being is a terrible thing to waste, just for some assholes play toy.
Lots of Kids
Lots of Assholes
Lots of Assholes who will hurt kids no matter the consequence! Society rules or not.
> If a child consents to sex,
> Of course, today any sex act would be psychologically harmful.
So we take the case of that 3 year old, who is in no position to consent to anything - or the case of a 12 year old who has been so fucked up by parents they do not know right from wrong.
Bottom line is that a human being is a terrible thing to waste, just for some assholes play toy.
Lots of Kids
Lots of Assholes
Lots of Assholes who will hurt kids no matter the consequence! Society rules or not.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,508
@128,504 (A)
The cultural pressure put on children? You're attempting to change the cause of this damage to society from what it actually is: An adult doing sexual things with a child.
11-13? what kind of dream world do you live in? Most fucking 17 year olds barely understand everything that goes along with sex, let alone someone who is fucking 11 years old.
And how can something like this truly be consensual when their is, inherently, such a power difference between those involved? a child could 'agree' because the older person told them to or offered them candy or used their power advantage in another way to coerce sex out of the minor.
The cultural pressure put on children? You're attempting to change the cause of this damage to society from what it actually is: An adult doing sexual things with a child.
11-13? what kind of dream world do you live in? Most fucking 17 year olds barely understand everything that goes along with sex, let alone someone who is fucking 11 years old.
And how can something like this truly be consensual when their is, inherently, such a power difference between those involved? a child could 'agree' because the older person told them to or offered them candy or used their power advantage in another way to coerce sex out of the minor.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,509
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,510
@128,507 (Syntax)
Well the idea is, that a cultural change would remove most (all?) psychological harm associated with it.
Well the idea is, that a cultural change would remove most (all?) psychological harm associated with it.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,511
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,512
@previous (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
You give kids too much credit. Even with sex ed classes, most people in my high school had no idea what they were getting into. pregnancy rates were high, STD's went around like mad, and it was just one big cesspool of idiocy.
You give kids too much credit. Even with sex ed classes, most people in my high school had no idea what they were getting into. pregnancy rates were high, STD's went around like mad, and it was just one big cesspool of idiocy.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,513
@128,509 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
I'm comparing the rate at which society changes their opinions on important matters.
People called homosexuality a mental disease. Cops ignored gay-bashing.
I'm comparing the rate at which society changes their opinions on important matters.
People called homosexuality a mental disease. Cops ignored gay-bashing.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,514
@128,508 (E)
> the cause of this damage to society from what it actually is: An adult doing sexual things with a child.
I think it's clear to everyone that we are talking about that.
> Most fucking 17 year olds barely understand everything that goes along with sex
You just went full retard.
> And how can something like this truly be consensual when their is, inherently, such a power difference between those involved? a child could 'agree' because the older person told them to or offered them candy or used their power advantage in another way to coerce sex out of the minor.
If they are a parent/teacher or other person in a position of power, it should be considered coercion. If it is as traumatizing as you say, then no kid would accept candy for it.
> the cause of this damage to society from what it actually is: An adult doing sexual things with a child.
I think it's clear to everyone that we are talking about that.
> Most fucking 17 year olds barely understand everything that goes along with sex
You just went full retard.
> And how can something like this truly be consensual when their is, inherently, such a power difference between those involved? a child could 'agree' because the older person told them to or offered them candy or used their power advantage in another way to coerce sex out of the minor.
If they are a parent/teacher or other person in a position of power, it should be considered coercion. If it is as traumatizing as you say, then no kid would accept candy for it.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #128,515
@128,508 (E)> Most fucking 17 year olds barely understand everything that goes along with sex, let alone someone who is fucking 11 years old.
> implying people must understand sex in order to participate in it
> implying you can understand something you never had
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,516
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,523
Circumcising a baby is okay? <--- WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO
But masturbating a baby isn't?
But masturbating a baby isn't?
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Possibly !4et0YaTXO. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,524
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,526
@128,513 (A)
The argument you are using supposes that a society makes say Homosexuality "wrong" and later revises it to "ok"
and you want to parse that with a future where a society lets a child decide "Whatever" for themselves, no matter the age or education or even brain development.
Why not just imagine a Society where Rape and Murder are the norm and you damn well know that currently, there are multiple Gov examples in North Africa and Africa.
Norms do change or that is what a Government in power will allow. What Governments do is not always right, correct, or even agreed on by those under the Governments control.
So just suppose you were to get it the way you want it (Hypothetical) - Then you are ok in principle with a 5 month old child allowing penetration by an adult?
The argument you are using supposes that a society makes say Homosexuality "wrong" and later revises it to "ok"
and you want to parse that with a future where a society lets a child decide "Whatever" for themselves, no matter the age or education or even brain development.
Why not just imagine a Society where Rape and Murder are the norm and you damn well know that currently, there are multiple Gov examples in North Africa and Africa.
Norms do change or that is what a Government in power will allow. What Governments do is not always right, correct, or even agreed on by those under the Governments control.
So just suppose you were to get it the way you want it (Hypothetical) - Then you are ok in principle with a 5 month old child allowing penetration by an adult?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,533
@previous (Syntax)
> The argument you are using supposes that a society makes say Homosexuality "wrong" and later revises it to "ok"
Yes, it supposes it was once unaccepted, and now is.
> Why not just imagine a Society where Rape and Murder are the norm and you damn well know that currently, there are multiple Gov examples in North Africa and Africa.
Rape by definition is unconsentual. Murder is typically unconsenual as well (I do not believe assisted suicide should be prohibited).
> Norms do change or that is what a Government in power will allow. What Governments do is not always right, correct, or even agreed on by those under the Governments control.
I did not say "legal things are moral". Someone said "it would never happen" and I responded with evidence that it is very possible. I never said "It's good because it's possible", nor is it. I believe culture is the root of the problem, and the victimizing of kids, and telling them they have been violated. Remove that, and I believe it becomes much less of a problem, if any.
> So just suppose you were to get it the way you want it (Hypothetical) - Then you are ok in principle with a 5 month old child allowing penetration by an adult?
That would cause physical harm, which would lead to pyschological trauma. 5 months old cannot talk, and therefor not consent.
Imagine if you revealed a girls ankles in a time when it was considered very revealing. She would be embarrased! It's nothing about the act itself, but the culture that tells us that lady's should not show their ankles.
> The argument you are using supposes that a society makes say Homosexuality "wrong" and later revises it to "ok"
Yes, it supposes it was once unaccepted, and now is.
> Why not just imagine a Society where Rape and Murder are the norm and you damn well know that currently, there are multiple Gov examples in North Africa and Africa.
Rape by definition is unconsentual. Murder is typically unconsenual as well (I do not believe assisted suicide should be prohibited).
> Norms do change or that is what a Government in power will allow. What Governments do is not always right, correct, or even agreed on by those under the Governments control.
I did not say "legal things are moral". Someone said "it would never happen" and I responded with evidence that it is very possible. I never said "It's good because it's possible", nor is it. I believe culture is the root of the problem, and the victimizing of kids, and telling them they have been violated. Remove that, and I believe it becomes much less of a problem, if any.
> So just suppose you were to get it the way you want it (Hypothetical) - Then you are ok in principle with a 5 month old child allowing penetration by an adult?
That would cause physical harm, which would lead to pyschological trauma. 5 months old cannot talk, and therefor not consent.
Imagine if you revealed a girls ankles in a time when it was considered very revealing. She would be embarrased! It's nothing about the act itself, but the culture that tells us that lady's should not show their ankles.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,547
@previous (A)
You have returned to psychological trauma as harmless or you assume that a consenting child will not suffer from psychological trauma.
A Child is too young to consent. A child that does consent is too young. If they are too young to even drive a car, how can a society agree that a 15 year old child can consent to sex.
Taking this Hypothetical stuff out of the mix - Putting myself on the line and I have posted this in the past.
I have a daughter and she is the result of me using a top quality Condom - Trojan fresh right out of the box.
There are Gals I know who started their periods at 12 or 13. So a girl could get pregnant by an adult and you damn well know a 12 year old is not old enough to raise a child.
How is the same 12 year old girl old enough to give consent?
You have returned to psychological trauma as harmless or you assume that a consenting child will not suffer from psychological trauma.
A Child is too young to consent. A child that does consent is too young. If they are too young to even drive a car, how can a society agree that a 15 year old child can consent to sex.
Taking this Hypothetical stuff out of the mix - Putting myself on the line and I have posted this in the past.
I have a daughter and she is the result of me using a top quality Condom - Trojan fresh right out of the box.
There are Gals I know who started their periods at 12 or 13. So a girl could get pregnant by an adult and you damn well know a 12 year old is not old enough to raise a child.
How is the same 12 year old girl old enough to give consent?
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,564
> children/teenagers are too young to understand and consent to sexual intercourse> but infants are old enough to be forced into a pointless and extremely painful/barbaric ritual (unneeded) circumcision without anesthesia
I'd much rather have to deal with being molested over that ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,567
MESSAGE DELETED
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #128,572
@128,564 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Yes you are spot on re dumb adults who allow that barbaric act. The very same women who allow this are also the very same women who will yell when Arabs remove Clitoris hoods or full Clitoris's from an infant.
Stooooopid religions and there b many Stupid Religious practices.
Yes you are spot on re dumb adults who allow that barbaric act. The very same women who allow this are also the very same women who will yell when Arabs remove Clitoris hoods or full Clitoris's from an infant.
Stooooopid religions and there b many Stupid Religious practices.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,577
> this thread
didn't read, lol
didn't read, lol
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,580
@128,572 (Syntax)
> remove Clitoris hoods or full Clitoris's from an infant.
I think a fairer comparison is the removal of the labia minora/majora along with the removal of the Clitoral hood.
> remove Clitoris hoods or full Clitoris's from an infant.
I think a fairer comparison is the removal of the labia minora/majora along with the removal of the Clitoral hood.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,583
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Fact is it rages to full removal including sewing up Labia 98% closed to just the hood, depending on what/where/
All for the very same reason. I used to work full tyme for USA Gov and lived in US Embassies all over the Planet we call Earth. Now and then a mother would bring in a daughter for refuge and in most cases we could help, in others we had to say no admittance. NOT my area of work but I sure did get a chance to find other refuge for a few. If we could not then a French embassy or Canadian close by "might" or I would just give the mother enough cash for her to find a way out.
Did not take much out of my wallet. Considering that in some places I remember, a full years income for one family might be $300 year.
Fact is it rages to full removal including sewing up Labia 98% closed to just the hood, depending on what/where/
All for the very same reason. I used to work full tyme for USA Gov and lived in US Embassies all over the Planet we call Earth. Now and then a mother would bring in a daughter for refuge and in most cases we could help, in others we had to say no admittance. NOT my area of work but I sure did get a chance to find other refuge for a few. If we could not then a French embassy or Canadian close by "might" or I would just give the mother enough cash for her to find a way out.
Did not take much out of my wallet. Considering that in some places I remember, a full years income for one family might be $300 year.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,752
So, you're saying that minors have the mental capacity necessary to have sex, but if these same minors end up regretting it, it's not because of their gut instinct, but because of what culture dictates? That doesn't quite make sense to me. If you were truly interested in protecting the rights and freedoms of minors, you would understand that they possess the instinctual ability to differentiate right from wrong. Just like you ask, Who is society to tell children how to react to sexual encounters?, who are you to tell children who feel guilty after sex that they were brain-washed into believing so? If they're so capable of sexual consent, I'll be damned if they can't understand their own emotions.
Most cultures do uphold the belief that children are incapable of consenting to sex, and they do so for a very good, transparent reason. An arbitrary age is set to protect the majority. Sure, some will be ready for sex before others, but the variability in ages is hardly enough to necessitate changing the AoC for everyone.
Then there's the argument that, as soon as a child's sexual organs are developing, their body is ready for intercourse. Alright, but if this was true, then you'd have to consider their potential for reproduction and its aftermath; we're arguing from an evolutionary perspective, after all. If the argument is that a 12-year old girl, whose body has begun to become more adult-like, is as capable as any adult woman of saying yes to sexual intercourse, then you would also have to accept that she is ready to parent a child at that age. Even if, as you mentioned earlier, no penetration is involved, the principle remains the same.
So yes, culture may maintain and perpetuate an "abstract" age of consent, but it's in synch with the needs and wants of the majority. The day that 12-year-olds can legally consent to sex will be the day they are able to provide for the full wants and needs of their newborn babies.
Most cultures do uphold the belief that children are incapable of consenting to sex, and they do so for a very good, transparent reason. An arbitrary age is set to protect the majority. Sure, some will be ready for sex before others, but the variability in ages is hardly enough to necessitate changing the AoC for everyone.
Then there's the argument that, as soon as a child's sexual organs are developing, their body is ready for intercourse. Alright, but if this was true, then you'd have to consider their potential for reproduction and its aftermath; we're arguing from an evolutionary perspective, after all. If the argument is that a 12-year old girl, whose body has begun to become more adult-like, is as capable as any adult woman of saying yes to sexual intercourse, then you would also have to accept that she is ready to parent a child at that age. Even if, as you mentioned earlier, no penetration is involved, the principle remains the same.
So yes, culture may maintain and perpetuate an "abstract" age of consent, but it's in synch with the needs and wants of the majority. The day that 12-year-olds can legally consent to sex will be the day they are able to provide for the full wants and needs of their newborn babies.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,757
@previous (L)
> implying one needs to be that old to provide for the full wants and needs of their newborn babies
You don't think the state will back them?
> implying one needs to be that old to provide for the full wants and needs of their newborn babies
You don't think the state will back them?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,796
@128,752 (L)
> So, you're saying that minors have the mental capacity necessary to have sex, but if these same minors end up regretting it, it's not because of their gut instinct, but because of what culture dictates?
That's the hypothesis.
> That doesn't quite make sense to me. If you were truly interested in protecting the rights and freedoms of minors, you would understand that they possess the instinctual ability to differentiate right from wrong.
Right and wrong are human creations. If a culture says showing your ankles is wrong, people will feel embarrassed when their dress is lifted to reveal their ankles.
If they do something, and we tell them they have been wronged, they will feel wronged.
> Just like you ask, Who is society to tell children how to react to sexual encounters?, who are you to tell children who feel guilty after sex that they were brain-washed into believing so?
I am not. I am saying we should let them come to a decision on their own. Do not tell them they have lost innocence, and making a big deal of it, and showing your horror. Do not tell them "It was good you did that, don't pretend it was bad!". Let them come to a decision.
Perhaps this can be done in a safe way. The pedo can disappear to prison. If the child one day says "I can't beleive I did that, what ever happened to him!?" reassure them, and say justice was served. Isn't this sitaution something we can agree on? Justice is served, and the child is not worried, or shamed.
> So yes, culture may maintain and perpetuate an "abstract" age of consent, but it's in synch with the needs and wants of the majority. The day that 12-year-olds can legally consent to sex will be the day they are able to provide for the full wants and needs of their newborn babies.
Perhaps.
I am trying to play a devils advocate on some issues.
I do truly believe though, that our reactions will exacerbate the anxiety felt by a child.
> So, you're saying that minors have the mental capacity necessary to have sex, but if these same minors end up regretting it, it's not because of their gut instinct, but because of what culture dictates?
That's the hypothesis.
> That doesn't quite make sense to me. If you were truly interested in protecting the rights and freedoms of minors, you would understand that they possess the instinctual ability to differentiate right from wrong.
Right and wrong are human creations. If a culture says showing your ankles is wrong, people will feel embarrassed when their dress is lifted to reveal their ankles.
If they do something, and we tell them they have been wronged, they will feel wronged.
> Just like you ask, Who is society to tell children how to react to sexual encounters?, who are you to tell children who feel guilty after sex that they were brain-washed into believing so?
I am not. I am saying we should let them come to a decision on their own. Do not tell them they have lost innocence, and making a big deal of it, and showing your horror. Do not tell them "It was good you did that, don't pretend it was bad!". Let them come to a decision.
Perhaps this can be done in a safe way. The pedo can disappear to prison. If the child one day says "I can't beleive I did that, what ever happened to him!?" reassure them, and say justice was served. Isn't this sitaution something we can agree on? Justice is served, and the child is not worried, or shamed.
> So yes, culture may maintain and perpetuate an "abstract" age of consent, but it's in synch with the needs and wants of the majority. The day that 12-year-olds can legally consent to sex will be the day they are able to provide for the full wants and needs of their newborn babies.
Perhaps.
I am trying to play a devils advocate on some issues.
I do truly believe though, that our reactions will exacerbate the anxiety felt by a child.
ProfessorParadox !gLMbaxlyfg joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,872
The current situation of pedophiles is analogous to the situation of homosexuals before the gay-rights movement and of women before the women’s movement. Pedophilia, is regarded by almost everyone who is not a pedophile as "unnatural", "depraved", "criminal"; but many heterosexuals once thought that homosexuality was a disease and an offense against God and nature, and many men once thought that sexually active women were monsters. In each of the earlier cases, the dominant group maintained that there was a “natural†type of sexual behavior. And, in each case, once it was demonstrated that what people believe to be “natural†is just a social construction, devised by the dominant group to preserve its own status, then the “deviant†group was on its way to acceptance. the present taboo is a convention, and not based on anything real. The concept of "child molestation" is a culture- and class-specific modern creation.
To the people in this thread who say pedophilia, pedophiles, and adult-child sex will never be accepted, let me remind you that people used to say the exact same things about homosexuality and homosexuals. They said "homosexuality will never be accepted", "homosexuals will never be accepted", "society will never accept homosexuals", "society will never accept homosexuality"; And lo and behold homosexuals and homosexuality were eventually accepted.
Back then, psychiatrists were trying to "cure" homosexuals; They where trying to find a "cure" for homosexuality because it was considered a mental disorder, and homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill. Today, the EXACT same thing is happening, but this time it's pedophiles instead of homosexuals.
To the people in this thread who say pedophilia, pedophiles, and adult-child sex will never be accepted, let me remind you that people used to say the exact same things about homosexuality and homosexuals. They said "homosexuality will never be accepted", "homosexuals will never be accepted", "society will never accept homosexuals", "society will never accept homosexuality"; And lo and behold homosexuals and homosexuality were eventually accepted.
Back then, psychiatrists were trying to "cure" homosexuals; They where trying to find a "cure" for homosexuality because it was considered a mental disorder, and homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill. Today, the EXACT same thing is happening, but this time it's pedophiles instead of homosexuals.
Katerina Shcherbatskaya replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,909
@128,796 (A)
> our reactions will exacerbate the anxiety felt by a child.
Adult rape victims are stigmatized by society and revictimized by reactions, too. The solution isn't to accept rape or to stop acknowledging that it's a bad thing. Instead, we should do away with the taboo on sex crimes (i.e., the opposite of your suggestion) and the cult of sexual purity.
> our reactions will exacerbate the anxiety felt by a child.
Adult rape victims are stigmatized by society and revictimized by reactions, too. The solution isn't to accept rape or to stop acknowledging that it's a bad thing. Instead, we should do away with the taboo on sex crimes (i.e., the opposite of your suggestion) and the cult of sexual purity.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,956
@128,872 (ProfessorParadox !gLMbaxlyfg)
The difference is that homosexual relations are between two consenting adults, and women's rights movement as it concerns women's sexuality was about women not having to suppress their own sexuality. Children do not have the sexual maturity or cognitive reasoning to truly consent to sex. Another problem is that children rarely ever consent to sex in any sense of the term and they are flatout raped and molested. Another issue is the fact that adults have a lot of power and influnce over children, so often times their "consent" is not consent at all, but rather, submission. It's really insulting that you would compare the suppression of pedophiles to the suppression of women. You make it sound like pedophiles have a right to have sex with children in the same way that women have a right to express their sexuality with consenting partners. It's really disturbing that you can't see the difference.
The difference is that homosexual relations are between two consenting adults, and women's rights movement as it concerns women's sexuality was about women not having to suppress their own sexuality. Children do not have the sexual maturity or cognitive reasoning to truly consent to sex. Another problem is that children rarely ever consent to sex in any sense of the term and they are flatout raped and molested. Another issue is the fact that adults have a lot of power and influnce over children, so often times their "consent" is not consent at all, but rather, submission. It's really insulting that you would compare the suppression of pedophiles to the suppression of women. You make it sound like pedophiles have a right to have sex with children in the same way that women have a right to express their sexuality with consenting partners. It's really disturbing that you can't see the difference.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,957
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,966
@128,909 (Katerina Shcherbatskaya)
Rape is unconsentual.
WE can switch to a culture that accepts sex more, and says "why not?" but if in the end they still say no- kid or adult- that has to be respected. Obviously if they say no, they will suffer traumatization.
Rape is unconsentual.
WE can switch to a culture that accepts sex more, and says "why not?" but if in the end they still say no- kid or adult- that has to be respected. Obviously if they say no, they will suffer traumatization.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,974
OP is butt-frustrated.
Nega !aEp48yJmng joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #128,980
@previous (P)> OP is butt-frustrated.
Same can be said of at least 2 thirds of the userbase.
@OP
I'm more interested in the process that would bring about such a paradigm shift.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #129,067
This might seem unrelated but it really is.
Has any biological reason been found for our hysterical fear of rape, or is it purely cultural?
Has any biological reason been found for our hysterical fear of rape, or is it purely cultural?
Nega !aEp48yJmng replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #129,086
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #129,087
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #129,209
Sup, Bitcoins?
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #129,210
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #129,212
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #129,335
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #129,413
@129,067 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
The biological reason is probably because the rapist violates the woman's control she has over reproduction. It violates the woman's right to choose the partner she wants to reproduce with. Of course, that's looking at on a strictly biological level. There are still ethical and cultural reasons, and just because those reasons are culturally influenced does not mean that they're not good reasons.
The biological reason is probably because the rapist violates the woman's control she has over reproduction. It violates the woman's right to choose the partner she wants to reproduce with. Of course, that's looking at on a strictly biological level. There are still ethical and cultural reasons, and just because those reasons are culturally influenced does not mean that they're not good reasons.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #129,486
I mean a biological proof, not a logical theory with no link to reality. @previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #129,614
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #129,616
Thhanks. @previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)