[Spooner]

Throughout history psychologists have made some controversial claims. Until the early 20th century is was generally agreed that masturbation was harmful, resulting in male circumcision (still practised today) and even clitoridectomy. Black people were 'proven' to be mentally inferior to whites, justifying segregation and their mistreatment. Homosexuals were considered mentally ill and subjected to hormone therapy. How can we be certain that today's 'experts' are not simply justifying societies prejudices?

Despite great variation in age of consent laws (ranging from 18 in USA to 14 in Germany) most experts consider consensual sex to be inherently harmful to persons under the age of consent, even teenagers a few years below these arbitrary age based laws are considered 'victims' when they have consensual sex with adults. What evidence leads psychologists to conclude that sex is harmful to pubescent and prepubescent minors? What studies support the criminalisation of consensual sex with persons under the age of consent?

In the same way that African children labelled 'witches' start to believe they are genuinely evil, children labelled 'victims' start to believe they have been harmed i.e. a 14 year old having sex in the USA may see themselves as a 'victim' after the arrest of their adult partner and subsequent therapy sessions, while Germans of the same age might not (as 14 is legal). Clearly therapists can influence how minors view their sexual experiences.

Obviously young people need to be protected from exploitation and harm. Small children are not physically capable of having penetrative sex with adults, however not all sex acts involve penetration. In many cases sex is criminalised despite the consent of partners, use of contraception and lack of physical/mental harm. Can anyone provide me with relevant information explaining why consensual sex with minors is harmful and why? Are there only moral reasons justifying the criminalization of sex with pubescent and prepubescent minors, or does tangible evidence of harm exist?

[John Cuthber]

Are minors who have sex with adults 'victims'?
Yes.

[Appolinaria]

I second that.

[Phi for All]

Is there like a pedophile handbook that teaches them to mention the witch children in Africa? I only ask because the Is it OK to have sex with kids? thread in the Ethics section mentions it too:

Banjofrog, on 13 October 2011 - 10:46 AM, said:

And if not why not?

Most people agree that actions which harm others are wrong, but many actions are illegal which do not harm anyone and are known as victimless crimes. How can society justify criminalizing having sex with kids if it doesn't hurt anyone?

Many assume that a child will be 'traumatized' by having sex with an adult, however this is not true. Firstly ages of consent vary across the world (from 13 in Spain to 18 in California) - proof that there is no consensus on what the minimally acceptable age at which a person can engage in sex is. Secondly much of the 'trauma' (guilt, shame, victimization) felt by 'victims' is in fact caused by society, such as in the case of Africa's 'Witch Children', many of whom genuinely believe they are 'witches' - not because they are but because they have been told they are.

Suppose a child has consensual safe-sex with an adult in a society where this is permitted (and therefore not immoral/taboo etc). In what way would the child be harmed?

Just sayin'.

[Appolinaria]

HAHA, Phi.

[Moontanman]

Ok, again, I'll bite on this one, not because i think sex with children is ok, but i ask why is does sex seem to be so specially horrific? We can do almost anything to and with our children but have sexual contact with them. We can engage them into dangerous behavior, dress them up like hookers and parade them on stage, teach them to perform like trained animals, even if the training is dangerous or false, we can freely damage them mentally and even physically to a point but sexual contact? I do not agree that sex is harmless but why can we teach them to hate to believe in almost anything and to participate in antisocial behavior with almost no question but something as enjoyable as sex is somehow horrific beyond any possible justification?

While i do not support sex with minors i have to question why sex is so special. Is it because our culture looks at sex as evil? But we allow and ignore people like the West burro Baptist church and what they teach their children? We can teach them to worship who ever their parents want and rend their flesh to placate some imaginary deity (as long as it is a currently popular one) but off with an adults head if they participate in any sexual contact with a child, this seems disingenuous to me. If we are really going to protect our children then why don't we really protect them and not just give lip service to the idea of protecting them unless it has to do with sex?

Then there are the cults that make women into nothing but wombs, slaves to men and start the girls out having babies as soon as they are physically able and teach them to practically worship men and to ignore any reality but the tiny one as defined by the men who control them but since it's religion it's ok?

this is an explosive topic but it should be discussed i think....

[Iggy]

John Cuthber, on 4 November 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Are minors who have sex with adults 'victims'?
Yes.

Appolinaria, on 4 November 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

I second that.

+1

Phi for All, on 4 November 2011 - 06:01 PM, said:

Is there like a pedophile handbook that teaches them to mention the witch children in Africa? I only ask because the Is it OK to have sex with kids? thread in the Ethics section mentions it too:

NAMBLA passes it out

Moontanman, on 4 November 2011 - 08:48 PM, said:

Ok, again, I'll bite on this one, not because i think sex with children is ok, but i ask why is does sex seem to be so specially horrific? We can do almost anything to and with our children but have sexual contact with them. We can engage them into dangerous behavior, dress them up like hookers and parade them on stage, teach them to perform like trained animals, even if the training is dangerous or false, we can freely damage them mentally and even physically to a point but sexual contact? I do not agree that sex is harmless but why can we teach them to hate to believe in almost anything and to participate in antisocial behavior with almost no question but something as enjoyable as sex is somehow horrific beyond any possible justification?

While i do not support sex with minors i have to question why sex is so special. Is it because our culture looks at sex as evil? But we allow and ignore people like the West burro Baptist church and what they teach their children? We can teach them to worship who ever their parents want and rend their flesh to placate some imaginary deity (as long as it is a currently popular one) but off with an adults head if they participate in any sexual contact with a child, this seems disingenuous to me. If we are really going to protect our children then why don't we really protect them and not just give lip service to the idea of protecting them unless it has to do with sex?

Then there are the cults that make women into nothing but wombs, slaves to men and start the girls out having babies as soon as they are physically able and teach them to practically worship men and to ignore any reality but the tiny one as defined by the men who control them but since it's religion it's ok?

this is an explosive topic but it should be discussed i think....

I can think of a difference between 'sex with kids' and 'religious brainwashing' that may put them on different playing fields.

Sex with a child is never ok. It's never healthy for the kid. Religion, on the other hand, isn't always harmful. I say this even though I really dislike the religious brainwashing of children.

[Spooner]

Thank you for your replies everyone, I know this is a controversial topic but I appreciate your input.

John Cuthber, on 4 November 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Are minors who have sex with adults 'victims'?
Yes.

Can you justify this statement, or is it an arbitrary moral opinion?

Moontanman - you raise many valid points.

For example, parents may fed their children junk food resulting in health problems. Parents may raise their children to be Jews and circumcise them. So why can't parents be involved in a child's first sexual experience? Surely such an important event must have parent supervision.

[matty]

Is it me or does the mere phrasing of this question seem already to seat responsibility with the minor?

Perhaps, it would be better put to the group, "Is an adult victimizing a minor in engaging in sexual acts with him or her?"..

Spooner, on 8 November 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

Thank you for your replies everyone, I know this is a controversial topic but I appreciate your input.



Can you justify this statement, or is it an arbitrary moral opinion?

Moontanman - you raise many valid points.

For example, parents may fed their children junk food resulting in health problems. Parents may raise their children to be Jews and circumcise them. So why can't parents be involved in a child's first sexual experience? Surely such an important event must have parent supervision.

I'm sorry, could you please elaborate on/qualify your own remarks here?--Are you saying that since parents go unchecked in so many other ways, malnourishing, as example, why are they precluded from also handling their first sexual experience in such a hands-on manner?--Isn't this a duplicate of another thread currently in circulation?--And what was that about Jews???

[brodmannstwentysecond]

matty, on 24 November 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

Is it me or does the mere phrasing of this question seem already to seat responsibility with the minor?

I certainly didn't pick up on that.

matty, on 24 November 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

Are you saying that since parents go unchecked in so many other ways, malnourishing, as example, why are they precluded from also handling their first sexual experience in such a hands-on manner?

His point is actually worded as a demonstration of the need for a clear differentiating factor between appropriate and inappropriate forms of parenting. Just reading the posts so far, I'd say our only differentiating factor is "sexual" versus "nonsexual," which gives every argument on this thread a sense of pointlessness, for we have yet to define our own aversion to the topic.

This post has been edited by brodmannstwentysecond: 8 December 2011 - 07:44 AM

[Beast]

Victims is not the work i would use.But yes. of cource it is.

it does not matter where they come from.worship.How they live

Children should not be having sex in the first place full stop.
I have no idea why people thing sex is everythink in this world and it does annoy me alot. Sex i believe is our human terms is a act of pure intimacy and any act of sex that isnt for both people this makes them both victims.You may argue that sex is a natural process and happends all the time 24/7 a form of creating of spring but we as human claims we are more than just Animals that are just alive to create more of us?

Therefore minors having sex makes them both victims. The child should be out playing and learning. the adult should be with his own adults.

Beast, on 4 January 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Victims is not the work i would use.But yes. of cource it is.

it does not matter where they come from.worship.How they live

Children should not be having sex in the first place full stop.
I have no idea why people thing sex is everythink in this world and it does annoy me alot. Sex i believe is our human terms is a act of pure intimacy and any act of sex that isnt for both people this makes them both victims.You may argue that sex is a natural process and happends all the time 24/7 a form of creating of spring but we as human claims we are more than just Animals that are just alive to create more of us?

Therefore minors having sex makes them both victims. The child should be out playing and learning. the adult should be with his own adults.

a child cannnot understand the intimacy at that young age, or shouldt for that matter

[iNow]

I find it interesting that you see sex as pure intimacy. I would argue that it is a biological urge which has evolved to help animals pass their genes to the future. Sex is about procreation, not intimacy. The fact that humans have chosen to pair bond in a monogamous way is actually quite strange, but we still have sex to have children more often than we have sex to express pure love. It's just the way it is, IMO. It's totally fine that you feel the way you do, but you're a bit outside the norm with that attitude (again, not that the norm is necessarily right or good).

[doG]

iNow, on 5 January 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Sex is about procreation, not intimacy. The fact that humans have chosen to pair bond in a monogamous way is actually quite strange, but we still have sex to have children more often than we have sex to express pure love.

I can't say that I particularly agree with that. Thus far in my life I've had way more sex for fun and recreation than procreation. I did manage to have 2 kids but even they were unintended. I can't say that I ever had sex even once with the intent of having children.

[iNow]

I'm not too sure we're really disagreeing here. It's fun because it's been selected for. It's been selected for because it encourages offspring. My intent was to suggest that I think sex for intimacy is very noble, but that's more of a choice and interpretation than a reality... that really it's about the release of pleasure chemicals in the brain... and the pleasure chemicals are there b/c those who didn't have them didn't carry their genes into future generations.

[Appolinaria]

80 percent of women fake an orgasm half the time, apparently sex is not just solely for chemical release

[iNow]

Appolinaria, on 5 January 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

80 percent of women fake an orgasm half the time

I'd really like to see a source for this claim. As it turns out, 80% is also the number of statistics that are just completely made up.

Also, FWIW... chemicals are still released even if a breath-taking orgasm is not.

[Appolinaria]

iNow said:

1325736236[/url]' post='648920']
I'd really like to see a source for this claim. As it turns out, 80% is also the number of statistics that are just completely made up.

Also, FWIW... chemicals are still released even if a breath-taking orgasm is not.

Yea but I'd put money down on the fact that close to no chemicals are being released in the majority of instances or that statistic would be less

[iNow]

I'd take that bet, and I'd win. Now... We're still waiting on either your source or your retraction.

[Appolinaria]

http://www.cbsnews.c...3-10391704.html

[iNow]

Appolinaria, on 5 January 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

http://www.cbsnews.c...3-10391704.html

I appreciate the reference, but a survey of 70 women hardly supports the force with which you put forth the point. I won't belabor it, though, as you were kind enough to at least back up your comment. I just find it nonsensical since it's not an adequate representation of the female population as a whole.

And still... Even if they fake their orgasms, there is still a release of pleasure chemicals in the brain, and that was my central point... a point that remains uncontested.