Is it OK to have sex with kids?

[Frontie]

This is ridiculous.

 

Is it ok to send children to war, if they're happy to go?

[Banjofrog]

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

[Arete]

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

 

It's not harmless:

 

http://jiv.sagepub.c...t/7/2/189.short

http://www.thelancet...6771-8/fulltext

http://www.tandfonli...0/J287v02n02_08

http://psycnet.apa.o...ls/bul/99/1/66/

http://journals.lww....l_abuse.12.aspx

etc ad infinitum

 

Clancy's book does not suggest that child sexual abuse is harmless, simply that the trauma manifests later in life. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Susan_Clancy

Edited February 26, 2012 by Arete

[Joatmon]

I suppose the most available children are your own. However, I believe that sex with your own child is particularly abhorrent as it is contrary to the normal instinct of protecting your child from harm. Even with an adult child almost ready for marriage I think the normal instinct is to promote their development toward a happy independent relationship with someone who will make them feel fullfilled in life.

I believe children generally do not view their parents as sexual beings. As one of my daughters said when somehow we touched on her feelings for her husband " Of course, I never thought about you that way, you were just Dad". As for me although she is nearly 50 years old she is still "my little girl".

[The Observer]

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

 

Most kids enjoy getting drunk too. I hardly think that is the issue here.

[life station]

THIS TOPIC TAKES US BACK TO LAW LESS PERIOD OF PRE HISTORIC TIME WHEN THE CAPABLE HUMAN WAS FREE TO DO ANY HARM TO OTHER BEINGS BY FORCE ,WHICH ONLY BENIFITED HIM, AND HE MAY BE ALSO JUSTIFYING HIMSELF THAT HE IS NOT DOING ANY HARM TO OTHERS,THINK IF THE SEADLINGS ARE PLUCKED FOOR FOOD BEFORE IT BECOMES GRAIN DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE ENOUGH FOOD FOR HUMAN RACE TO SURVIVE,NATURE HAS MECHANISED THE HUMAN BODY AND MIND IN SUCH A WAY THAT IF ANY THING DONE BEFORE MATURITY WILL CORUPT ITS LIFE CYCLES DEVLOPEMENT SO IN MY VIEW ANY SEX WITH CHILD IS CRIME TO THE NATURE

 

 

[afungusamongus]

Most people agree that actions which harm others are wrong,

 

Then by that definition a root canal is definitely wrong.

 

It seems to me that you are hinting at Utilitarianism, but you give no reason or argument as to why it is true or why we should accept it

 

How can society justify criminalizing having sex with kids if it doesn't hurt anyone?

 

That is a rather asinine comment. You clearly have not been sexually abused in your life. Maybe you should ask someone that has been if they think it harmed them. Then again they probably would not think such a question very good.

 

Victim less Crimes like what exactly. Pirating DVD maybe. If their was no victim in a crime then their probably would not have been any need to make the action illegal in the first place. I really cannot think of any crime that does not have a victim of some sort.

 

Do you think we should make rape legal because the women like it?

Edited March 5, 2012 by afungusamongus

[swansont]

THIS TOPIC TAKES US BACK…

!

Moderator Note

 

No need to SHOUT.

 

ALLCAPS is tough to read.

[zapatos]

Victim less Crimes like what exactly. Pirating DVD maybe. If their was no victim in a crime then their probably would not have been any need to make the action illegal in the first place. I really cannot think of any crime that does not have a victim of some sort.

Victimless crimes often come about when people try to legislate morals. Some example include:

 

Riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet

BASE jumping from city buildings

Individual purchase and consumption of recreational drugs

Driving a motor vehicle without a seatbelt

Prostitution and/or soliciting for prostitution

Public nudity and fornication

The consumption of pornography (not involving children or coercion)

http://www.ldp.org.au/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

[afungusamongus]

Riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet

 

No victim until you break your skull on the road and bleed to death.

 

BASE jumping from city buildings

 

Building owners have the right to refuse anyone access to their roofs. To go against that would make the owners victims of trespassing.

 

Individual purchase and consumption of recreational drugs

 

Drugs ruin lives pal. Definitely many victims of drug use.

 

Driving a motor vehicle without a seatbelt

 

Again no victim until you smash your skull into a thousand pieces on the dash and bleed to death.

 

The consumption of pornography

 

Where exactly is that illegal?

 

Public nudity and fornication

 

Surely you can understand why its is reasonable to ask people to have sex in their homes. Not everyone wants to see naked people having sex on the streets.

[imatfaal]

victim [ˈvɪktɪm]n1. a person or thing that suffers harm, death, etc., from another or from some adverse act, circumstance, etc. victims of tyranny2. a person who is tricked or swindled; dupe3. a living person or animal sacrificed in a religious rite[from Latin victima]Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

 

No victim until you break your skull on the road and bleed to death.

Nope that's not a victim

 

Building owners have the right to refuse anyone access to their roofs. To go against that would make the owners victims of trespassing.

Nope. Trespass is not a crime except in special circumstances - it is a tort. Secondly there are additional laws in some jurisdictions making the act of jumping illegal even when there is a right of access in most other circumstances.

 

Drugs ruin lives pal. Definitely many victims of drug use.

Nope. Lots of things ruin lives - that does not make the people who inflict that ruination upon themselves victims; except perhaps of circumstance and their own vulnerability. Tragic and perhaps correctly legislated against - but in and of itself individual consumption of drugs does not really have a victim.

 

Again no victim until you smash your skull into a thousand pieces on the dash and bleed to death.

. Nope - per the motorcycle example

 

Where exactly is that illegal?

Depends on the porn. There are examples of content that are acceptable (although very very weird) in Europe and illegal in the United States - e.g. portrayal of scatological acts are considered obscene in USA

 

Surely you can understand why its is reasonable to ask people to have sex in their homes. Not everyone wants to see naked people having sex on the streets.

From first principles, and trying to ignore social mores - no I cannot understand. It seems to me to be part of an ideology that involves labelling sex as dirty, unnatural, and shameful; the major paternalistic religions have always equated sex with these emotions and in essence blamed this on women. The control of sex has been the cornerstone of repressive religions for millennia and still remains so to this day; see Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about women who wish to take control of their own reproduction. This power only really works when sex is something shameful and wrong - something for the religious legislators to rule upon.

[Mr Rayon]

Apparently from what I've been hearing not today in the 21st century based upon the moral value system we've all understood and accepted.

 

If you're Christian I'm not sure what the Bible says though.

[zapatos]

No victim until you break your skull on the road and bleed to death.

 

 

 

Building owners have the right to refuse anyone access to their roofs. To go against that would make the owners victims of trespassing.

 

 

 

Drugs ruin lives pal. Definitely many victims of drug use.

 

 

 

Again no victim until you smash your skull into a thousand pieces on the dash and bleed to death.

 

 

 

Where exactly is that illegal?

 

 

 

Surely you can understand why its is reasonable to ask people to have sex in their homes. Not everyone wants to see naked people having sex on the streets.

 

Look, pal. Victimless crime is a well understood and frequently used term. Try the link I gave you or a Google search of 'victimless crime'. You'll get 650,000 hits.

[dragonstar57]

People who desire to have sex with children shouldn't be allowed to breed. And if you think sex with a child can in any way be consensual, you are either A) a child or B) a pedophile.

 

Banjofrog: Though we Ameticans are not nearly as annoying as pedophiles who compare themselves to homosexuals or racial minorities in order to get sympathy for their truly disgusting habit of diddling kids.

1. this is a devils advocate situation

2. there is no set change from child to adult and to pick an arbitrary line and then enforce it as if it had meaning would be hopelessly barbaric.

And I made it quite clear that deceiving a 13-year-old into having sex with you, while making it seem consensual, is prosecutable in Spain, the country you mentioned as having the lowest age of consent.

 

 

 

They certainly don't need to be justified cross-culturally. And there are plenty of reasons why laws against sex with children are justified. Abuse. Incest. And while no clinical numbers are available for psychological trauma, we do know that some children are traumatized by sex with adults. It frightens and disturbs them and creates unnatural expectations in some children. That's enough to warrant concern.

 

And please don't trot out any more horse-shit straw men arguments equating pedophilia to homosexuality. That may play well in other forums but people hear know a logical fallacy when they see one.

 

 

 

Your arguments all center on the consensual agreement, so let's just focus on that. True consent requires an informed decision. Children can't possibly comprehend all the nuances of sexuality, what it means in their society to be sexually active and sexually responsible. Further, consent requires the full ability to decline, and children are not equal in power to an adult, no matter what culture you refer to. There can be no true consensual sex between an adult and a child.

that is in no way a straw man as it supports the assertion that laws require a reason to be law and the logical one is that things that cause unjust harm is ileagal and what harms no one significantly should be legal stop with the horse shit children/adults concept show me a reason for any particular age or bench mark to used to indicate when this maturity forms and you will have a valid argument.

Edited May 7, 2012 by dragonstar57

[anotherfilthyape]

Define kids... Pedophilia is certainly harmful and a paraphilia, not so much for ephebophilia... The problem with a legal drinking age at 18 is that you get a driving legal age at 16, if it were the opposite there would be no problem... At 15 and older people are mature enough to get involved in sex, but if you want to make it legal for people to have sex with 13 year olds or 14 year olds you are mentally ill...