NationStates Jolt Archive

Some time ago I defended Catholicism--no jokes, please.

My defense of pedophilia: Sex is pleasure a just like any other (eating is the most readily comparable); provided birth-control is used, why should a child be unable to give legal consent to indulge in sexual intercourse with an older partner?

how old we talking about ?

how old we talking about ?

Whatever age offends your notion of propriety--but if we must be definitive, let us say 6-9 (assuming the intercourse would not adversely affect the child physically).

Some time ago I defended Catholicism--no jokes, please.

My defense of pedophilia: Sex is pleasure a just like any other (eating is the most readily comparable); provided birth-control is used, why should a child be unable to give legal consent to indulge in sexual intercourse with an older partner?

I actually agree with this...

let us say 6-9 (assuming the intercourse would not adversely affect the child physically).

They would not have developed sexual organs or any kind of sexual drive, so they can't really want to have sex, so it wouldn't really be consensual.

Whatever age offends your notion of propriety--but if we must be definitive, let us say 6-9 (assuming the intercourse would not adversely affect the child physically).

Not an assumption i am willing to make. Id need some medical evidence about the affect intercourse would have on a prepubescent.

why should a child be unable to give legal consent to indulge in sexual intercourse with an older partner?

In practice, if you allowed children to give consent to sex, you would only make it easier for abusive older people to pressure them into it and get away with it. And even if sex as such is harmless, exploitative sex in which a child has no chance of being a full partner can be quite harmful.

*munches on popcorn*

Not an assumption i am willing to make. Id need some medical evidence about the affect intercourse would have on a prepubescent.

Then may I ask for your hypothetical opinion?

Whatever age offends your notion of propriety--but if we must be definitive, let us say 6-9 (assuming the intercourse would not adversely affect the child physically).

Then they would be consenting to something whose significance they could not understand and whose pleasure they could not share.

For another person--especially an older person--to enter a child's intimate sphere on such grossly inequitable terms would not have good consequences.

Consent cannot be given, because the adult is in a position of power, and the child is too emotionally and mentally immature to make the decision.

Plus I'm sure their are a host of psychological studies showing damage to the victim, but I can't be bothered to look them up. I do recall hearing that sexually abused children often become offenders themselves. Then of course their's all the potential physical health effects of sex besides pregnancy.

In the end though, why even bother? Why are you asking this question? Is it a poor attempt at a joke? For shock value? Or do you honestly not know?

In practice, if you allowed children to give consent to sex, you would only make it easier for abusive older people to pressure them into it and get away with it. And even if sex as such is harmless, exploitative sex in which a child has no chance of being a full partner can be quite harmful.

That happens with adults too, though (abusive spouses, in other words).

That happens with adults too, though (abusive spouses, in other words).

Last time I checked, spousal abuse is illegal, too.

Then may I ask for your hypothetical opinion?

See that's a problem. The purpose of law is to discourage Behavior that prevents harm. If murder didn't kill anyone should it be illegal?
Or Robbery didn't steal from anything ?

A sexual act with a prepubescent is harmful that's why we make it illegal.

In practice, if you allowed children to give consent to sex, you would only make it easier for abusive older people to pressure them into it and get away with it. And even if sex as such is harmless, exploitative sex in which a child has no chance of being a full partner can be quite harmful.

So the age of consent should be raised to such time in which one can fully resist pressure, physical and psychological?

Please explain "full partner". Sex is simply a physical pleasure, let us briefly drop romantic concepts.

See that's a problem. The purpose of law is to discourage Behavior that prevents harm. If murder didn't kill anyone should it be illegal?

Yes, if it is done without consent.

Or Robbery didn't steal from anything ?

I believe it is illegal to make and sell artificial gold.

A sexual act with a prepubescent is harmful

If birth-control is used? source?

that's why we make it illegal.

I think that is an important factor in many persons minds, but I doubt that is why it is illegal.

So the age of consent should be raised to such time in which one can fully resist pressure, physical and psychological?

"Fully"? No. That would be "never."

But "to such time in which one can" resist pressure more than a prepubescent? Absolutely.

Please explain "full partner". Sex is simply a physical pleasure

And if you're talking about children 6-9, they can hardly share the physical pleasure.

Consent cannot be given, because the adult is in a position of power, and the child is too emotionally and mentally immature to make the decision.

So a child cannot eat ice-cream?

Plus I'm sure their are a host of psychological studies showing damage to the victim, but I can't be bothered to look them up.

That is what makes this debate so difficult, persons citing sources they refuse to name.

I do recall hearing that sexually abused children often become offenders themselves. Then of course their's all the potential physical health effects of sex besides pregnancy.

You are speaking of abuse, not consensual intercourse.

In the end though, why even bother? Why are you asking this question? Is it a poor attempt at a joke? For shock value? Or do you honestly not know?

I am playing the Devil's Advocate because I enjoy doing so. I attack religion in the company of Christians, and I defend it in the company of atheists.

Then they would be consenting to something whose significance they could not understand

So?

and whose pleasure they could not share.

They cannot be sexually stimulated, but they might enjoy the other aspects.

For another person--especially an older person--to enter a child's intimate sphere on such grossly inequitable terms would not have good consequences.

So an adult should not brush a child's hair?

So?

So they would hardly be giving informed consent or be equal participants. They would be simply used.

They cannot be sexually stimulated, but they might enjoy the other aspects.

Didn't you explicitly exclude non-physical pleasure?

So an adult should not brush a child's hair?

That can be a loving act of sorts, but not really an "intimate" one in the relevant sense. Sex is on a different scale entirely.

In practice, if you allowed children to give consent to sex, you would only make it easier for abusive older people to pressure them into it and get away with it. And even if sex as such is harmless, exploitative sex in which a child has no chance of being a full partner can be quite harmful.

This is exactly my thoughts. Young children are (generally) raised to listen to adults, especially adults that they know. The fact that children are most often abused by someone they know makes this all the more likely.

*brings the tapas and the wine*

*munches on popcorn*

Tsk-tsk.

*brings the tapas and the wine*

So they would hardly be giving informed consent or be equal participants. They would be simply used.

"Informed consent"? Please explain what "informed" means without the chance of pregnancy?

Didn't you explicitly exclude non-physical pleasure?

Yes; I mean other pleasurable aspects of the intercourse. Perhaps (please excuse me, I feel perverse talking thus) there is no "kick", but children still have pleasure centers in their organs of procreation.

That can be a loving act of sorts, but not really an "intimate" one in the relevant sense. Sex is on a different scale entirely.

But perhaps that highly arbitrary scale should not be decided upon by the government?

because children don't understand what sex is. And because sex would likely not be pleasurable for the child. Young boys have difficulty maintaining erections, young girls are too small/"tight"

"Informed consent"? Please explain what "informed" means without the chance of pregnancy?

Understanding the significance of the sex act?

Yes; I mean other pleasurable aspects of the intercourse. Perhaps (please excuse me, I feel perverse talking thus) there is no "kick", but children still have pleasure centers in their organs of procreation.

Not in the same way and not to the same extent.

But perhaps that highly arbitrary scale

How "arbitrary"? Sex is almost objectively intimate, both in terms of its physical connection and the fact that it involves us at our most vulnerable.

should not be decided upon by the government?

It is socially real even if you find it arbitrary, so it can still cause harm and is still a legitimate reason for legislation.

Understanding the significance of the sex act?

What significance?

Not in the same way and not to the same extent.

So?



How "arbitrary"? Sex is almost objectively intimate, both in terms of its physical connection

Hair brush, breastfeeding, ect.

and the fact that it involves us at our most vulnerable.

So the child should carry a gun?


It is socially real even if you find it arbitrary, so it can still cause harm and is still a legitimate reason for legislation.

Ah, but none has cited a source for this.

Here's my opinion. We can discuss it intellectually all we want, but if someone touched my child in a sexual manner, said person would find themselves facing my wrath, and no amount of intellectual wrangling would prevent me from inflicting upon them all the grevious bodily harm I could think of.

This sort of thing is pointless. When you starting pedantically breaking down every axiom, you'll eventually be left with things like "but why is sexual exploitation harmful?", and "why should harm be morally avoided?" and so on and so on, until your trapped in you're own solipsism, and people stop giving a shit and continue on as normal by not letting people be allowed to sexually abuse their children.

Here's my opinion. We can discuss it intellectually all we want, but if someone touched my child in a sexual manner, said person would find themselves facing my wrath, and no amount of intellectual wrangling would prevent me from inflicting upon them all the grevious bodily harm I could think of.

Even if your child consented?

So the child should carry a gun?

LOL. Oh man...


*Drinks some of Nanatsu's wine.*

Hope you don't mind, I have some Tequila here if you'd like to partake.

This sort of thing is pointless. When you starting pedantically breaking down every axiom, you'll eventually be left with things like "but why is sexual exploitation harmful?", and "why should harm be morally avoided?" and so on and so on, until your trapped in you're own solipsism, and people stop giving a shit and continue on as normal by not letting people be allowed to sexually abuse their children.

The intellectual arguments stop when we are worn down to two things: utilitarianism versus egotism. Try as he may, I doubt anyone could pedantically defeat either of these conflicting moralities.

Even if your child consented?

To being diddled by a 30 year old? No consent possible. Consent needs to be informed. First, do my 5 and 7 year olds need to understand all the biological ramifications of sexual intercourse? No. Do they need to understand all the social implications of sexual intercourse? No. Why? Because they haven't hit puberty yet. Their physical and emotional development have not yet caused them to get to the point where these considerations are important, or necessary. They would, however, have to know and properly understand ALL of these things in order to give informed consent. If the only reason someone is advocating they learn and understand these things is in order for them to give consent to sex with someone, then that argument isn't very compelling. Absent some information that NOT giving children this age such information, AND ensuring they understand it somehow harms the CHILD (not the adult wishing to diddle them), then I see no reason to do so.

Consent also needs to be free, without duress, fraud, or undue influence. Again since children are socially conditioned to listen to adults, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that consent, once informed, were given freely.


And if someone wanted to argue consent with me in the aforementioned scenario, they would soon find themselves unable to form intelligible words, if in fact they were still breathing at that point.

To being diddled by a 30 year old? No consent possible. Consent needs to be informed. First, do my 5 and 7 year olds need to understand all the biological ramifications of sexual intercourse? No.

What if birth-control is used and the ramifications are explained?

Do they need to understand all the social implications of sexual intercourse? No.

There are social implications?

Why? Because they haven't hit puberty yet. Their physical and emotional development have not yet caused them to get to the point where these considerations are important, or necessary. They would, however, have to know and properly understand ALL of these things in order to give informed consent.

How long would it take to teach them?

If the only reason someone is advocating they learn and understand these things is in order for them to give consent to sex with someone, then that argument isn't very compelling.

Why not?

Absent some information that NOT giving children this age such information, AND ensuring they understand it somehow harms the CHILD (not the adult wishing to diddle them), then I see no reason to do so.

We are speaking legally.

Consent also needs to be free, without duress, fraud, or undue influence. Again since children are socially conditioned to listen to adults, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that consent, once informed, were given freely.

Naturally the parents of the child would have to make sure it were.


And if someone wanted to argue consent with me in the aforementioned scenario, they would soon find themselves unable to form intelligible words, if in fact they were still breathing at that point.

I am thankful that I am not in the aforementioned scenario.

LOL. Oh man...


*Drinks some of Nanatsu's wine.*

Hope you don't mind, I have some Tequila here if you'd like to partake.

Mind if I join you in enjoying some tequila? I suspect I'm going to need to watch this thread for a while.

Sex is simply a physical pleasure,

I think this is the crucible of the argument, can a prepubescent have the physical pleasure of Sex?

I think this is the crucible of the argument, can a prepubescent have the physical pleasure of Sex?

Parts of their body can send pleasure signals back to the brain.

Parts of their body can send pleasure signals back to the brain.

Yes, but does it come from their undeveloped sexual organs? As in can these be stimulated?

Mind if I join you in enjoying some tequila? I suspect I'm going to need to watch this thread for a while.

*hands coffee to HotRodia* Much better. I must apologize for the controversial nature of this thread; I do hope your day is not eaten-up by sentry dutiy.

Yes, but does it come from their undeveloped sexual organs? As in can these be stimulated?

Yes, just not to the extent developed ones can, I believe.

Yes, just not to the extent developed ones can, I believe.

Really? :eek: I have to see a source, not to be nitpickey, but this is just totally against everything ive been led to believe....

*hands coffee to HotRodia* Much better. I must apologize for the controversial nature of this thread; I do hope your day is not eaten-up by sentry dutiy.

No worries. Controversial isn't problematic for me. A significant percentage of people's inability to respond appropriately to the controversial, however, is problematic.

Thanks for the offer of coffee. Excuse me as I go back to lurking.

Really? :eek: I have to see a source, not to be nitpickey, but this is just totally against everything ive been led to believe....

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/ChildBehaviorSupport/messages/145.html

Just read the whole thing.

Again since children are socially conditioned to listen to adults, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that consent, once informed, were given freely.

This issue could be fixed if we did not grant parents ownership rights merely for having given birth.

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/ChildBehaviorSupport/messages/145.html

Just read the whole thing.

Wow...:eek2:

Seriously, thats something that I never even considered till I was like 13 or 14...Crazy...

Some time ago I defended Catholicism--no jokes, please.

My defense of pedophilia: Sex is pleasure a just like any other (eating is the most readily comparable); provided birth-control is used, why should a child be unable to give legal consent to indulge in sexual intercourse with an older partner?

The same could be argued for guns and booze. You can explain what they can do and they should be able to decide for themselves. Problem is they can't. Most children that age don't understand the ramifications of what they are getting into. They don't have the ability to judge the partner.

Children usually trust the adult unless they have been taught otherwise by their parents.

When children can legally enter into contracts, you might have a foundation to build on.

Problem is most can't.

You should also define your ages in play.....

In practice, if you allowed children to give consent to sex, you would only make it easier for abusive older people to pressure them into it and get away with it. And even if sex as such is harmless, exploitative sex in which a child has no chance of being a full partner can be quite harmful.

^^ This.

*drinks beer*

The intellectual arguments stop when we are worn down to two things: utilitarianism versus egotism. Try as he may, I doubt anyone could pedantically defeat either of these conflicting moralities.

It's quite easy to pedantically defeat any morality.

It's quite easy to pedantically defeat any morality.

Except for those two.

Well, I tried to argue a physiology bit.....but apparently ive been taught wrong...

After that, its hard to argue morality, because its subjective and cant be proven...

However, reality states that the majority of the populace says its morally wrong, whether you can prove it or not, is beside the point, so Pedos arent getting off anytime soon...

Except for those two.

Utilitarianism is among the easiest (and I'm not attacking the theory here, I'm kind of a utilitarian myself).

Utilitarianism is among the easiest (and I'm not attacking the theory here, I'm kind of a utilitarian myself).

One can find reasons to vehemently disagree with it, just as one can with egotism. Still, it is impossible to use a logical argument against either.

One can find reasons to vehemently disagree with it, just as one can with egotism. Still, it is impossible to use a logical argument against either.

Do you want to take this outside!? (to another thread) :p

Please explain "full partner". Sex is simply a physical pleasure, let us briefly drop romantic concepts.

And this is quite false, in actuality. Sex with children is often power derived, a need and want to gain power over another. The actual pleasure comes from fulling this desire to dominate, not merely from sexual pleasure. This is where your argument, infact, falls apart, as it is not about pleasure, but domination over another whom hasn't the ability to fight back.

Mind if I join you in enjoying some tequila? I suspect I'm going to need to watch this thread for a while.

Yeah man, have at it!

*Pours shots*

Maybe you should bump the age up to say... 12? Beginning of puberty, hormones going crazy... there's a discussion.

Sex is simply a physical pleasure, let us briefly drop romantic concepts.
Even if we "drop romantic concepts", sex is still more than "simply a physical pleasure". There's quite obviously a psychological element to it.

Indeed, what physical pleasure hasn't?

The same reason we don't allow children to own land or enter contracts on their own: because they don't have any way of understanding the ramifications and significance of what they're doing. Is it possible that there are a very few certain very young individuals who could enter into a sexual relationship or a business contract with maturity and understanding? Yes, it's possible, but we don't make our laws on exceptions, we try to make them for the good of most of society. Everything we know about child-adult sexual relationships informs us that the vast majority of them are harmful and damaging to the child.

What if birth-control is used and the ramifications are explained? Refer back to my 'there needs to be a reason absent getting consent from a child to have sex with them' to inform them of said ramifications. He who asserts must prove...if children do not naturally understand these things, then teaching them these things must have a purpose.


There are social implications? To sex? Of course there are, varying depending on the society you're living in.

How long would it take to teach them? That would have to be something a proponent of such an education, for the purpose of the child giving consent to sex, would have to make, at which point those opposed to such an education would counter with their own analysis based on biological, and psychological child development research.


Why not?
Inherent bias of self-interest. If there is no other reason to teach a child these things OTHER than there being adults out there who want to have sex with children, then the argument itself suggests there is really no benefit to the child. Therefore there is no benefit to the child to putting the child through the age-inappropriate process of educating them on the subject to the extent they would need in order to give informed consent.

We are speaking legally.One of us is, yes. You do not change laws that are set out to protect persons from harm unless there is a compelling reason to do so. If there was some harm to the child caused by them not being informed to the extent necessary in this scenario, THAT would be a compelling reason for change. The desire on part of the adult is irrelevant.



Naturally the parents of the child would have to make sure it were.

No, not naturally. If a parent decides his or her child is capable of consent, does that make it true? Parents do not have the right to violate the physical autonomy of their children, nor give consent to same. At this point you might bring up something like being grounded, being sent to one's room, having one's meals decided for you, or perhaps even being spanked. A person who has guardianship over another (parent, in loco parentis or guardian), whether they are a child, or an adult with mental or physical disabilities, has certain responsibilities which does enable them to make some choices for their ward. There are limits to the corrective measures that can be taken, positive and negative duties that apply.

You might think perhaps to bring up something like a medical procedure, which is something parents can consent to on behalf of their children. Yet in this situation, as with the situation of giving consent to sex, the parent must also be fully informed in order to give consent.

They would have to have a way to know for sure that there would be no duress, fraud, or undue influence exerted on the child, OR the parent making the decision. They could not be expected to judge their own susceptibility to these kinds of pressures...someone outside of the situation would have to provide that information in order for the consent to be valid. That is only in relation to the issue of influence, assuming for the moment that the parent could take over the issue of being informed otherwise upon themself in order to make this decision for the child.

I don't actually think that would be possible...if the child could understand the issues surrounding the decision, then the child would be legally capable of making the decision his or herself. Since being fully informed in this situation is a prerequisite to consent, it could not be the case that someone else could be informed on the child's behalf therefore give consent for the child. To put it more simply, if the child can not be fully informed, the child cannot give consent. If the child can be fully informed, no one could give consent on his or her behalf. The second part of the test, influence, could not be decided by the child...it would have to be an objective, legal test, and frankly, I can't see how that would work.

But it all comes back to the main point that there has yet to be any compelling argument made for going through ANY of this, when it seems that the only one to gain would be the adult seeking sex with a child.


I am thankful that I am not in the aforementioned scenario.
You should be.

The same reason we don't allow children to own land or enter contracts on their own: because they don't have any way of understanding the ramifications and significance of what they're doing. Is it possible that there are a very few certain very young individuals who could enter into a sexual relationship or a business contract with maturity and understanding? Yes, it's possible, but we don't make our laws on exceptions, we try to make them for the good of most of society. Everything we know about child-adult sexual relationships informs us that the vast majority of them are harmful and damaging to the child.

Exactly. A child's brain, even in extremes where the child is hyper-intelligent, is fundamentally different from an adult's brain, and isn't set up with a proper balance given to emotion and critical thinking. The age when the brain undergoes that change can vary, but there's a strong basis for laws against allowing children to consent to sex with adults that's both ethical and scientific.

Some time ago I defended Catholicism--no jokes, please.

My defense of pedophilia: Sex is pleasure a just like any other (eating is the most readily comparable); provided birth-control is used, why should a child be unable to give legal consent to indulge in sexual intercourse with an older partner?

You fail.

You fail from the very beginning.

Devil's advocate is not a pure metaphor. And what do you think he is supposed to do? Announce "I really want this guy locked up or executed, but I'm going to say a few words for him to make it look legitimate"? No. It's not advocacy. It was never the idea. Devil's advocate is the one who has the capability to take this duty seriously and actually defend him.

Don't flatter yourself. You aren't one.

You've put up a safeguard, announced that you don't mean any of your "defense" - and how can a defense that's not meant to be defense possibly have any effect? It can't. You're not the advocate. You're a prosecutor, standing in the advocate's place, prosecuting the one who has already been convicted and executed. You're meaningless.

If you want to defend something, even something you don't support, take it seriously. Put yourself on the line. Don't leave any ground to retreat to. Take it to the end.

the hole in the "children are gullible" argument, isn't that its untrue, its just that all humans are gullible, from cradle to grave.

I think this is the crucible of the argument, can a prepubescent have the physical pleasure of Sex?

Not the same pleasure as a post-pubescent person, no. But that does not mean there can be no pleasure at all, or even that there has to be less pleasure (though I personally estimate that it will in fact BE vastly less) - just that the experienced pleasure would be different kind than that of the adult.

So then the crux becomes: is it bad if party A benefits more or differently from the deed than party B, if party B does still benefit ? Does your answer apply in general, or just in this case ?

Second focus of the debate: why is informed consent needed ? We are talking about the difference between a 6 year old saying "yes" and an adult saying "yes" with this question, not at "why can one not rape anybody" (though feel free to extend the debate there if you must).
The special social status of sex is mostly an artificial construct. The physical consequences of sex can be dire when we look at STDs, and there may be the occasional youngster that can in fact get pregnant at 6. Would precautions solve that ? If so, are there decent arguments to still oppose it ?

Satisfactory answers to that will do far more to hurt the case of Nambla and such than "EEEEW - I will break your legs filthy pedo !".

Informed consent requires understanding the possibility of enormous regret caused by having had sex with someone you have come to think of as absolutely undeserving at the time you regret it. Sexual acts can cause an emotional bond that persists even when you later hate each others guts. Some former sex partners may even become stalkers.

Are children capable of full understanding of these possible consequences and their gravity? I think not.
Are they capable at all of making an estimate of the probability of these consequences happening with a particular partner? Even less so.

Of course there are lots of people who never regret having had sex with anyone, and there may be a tiny number of genius kids that do really understand. That doesn't mean it's OK to seduce children, though. Chances are that the child doesn't understand, and the probability that it will suffer from regrets that dwarf the amount of pleasure it gets is way too high.

Really? I have to see a source, not to be nitpickey, but this is just totally against everything ive been led to believe....

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/ChildBehaviorSupport/messages/145.html

Just read the whole thing.

I don't mean to threadjack, but that reminds me... I once found myself the target of puppy love from a ~5 year old. That included masturbation-like behavior (by herself to herself, mind you), and wanting to give me kisses on the cheek. I ignored the former (too embarrassed and confused...) and allowed the latter. Next thing I know, the mother tells me the girl said I was her new best friend, and again I had no idea what to say or do or except being awfully embarrassed. I haven't seen that family since.

What on earth should I have done?

More on topic: where does one draw the line between allowing a kid to do what it wants (because one doesn't want to cause a negative self-image or whatever, or because one simply doesn't know how to respond), and pedophilia? One could for example argue that I, the adult, consented to something in the situation I described above, and that that makes me responsible for it.

What if birth-control is used and the ramifications are explained?

Birth control aren't 100% safe, and a child may not understand the difference between different kinds of birth controls or even what the consequenses really could be, even if you explain them to him or her.

It's the lack of understanding that is the reason why shildren should not be able to legally consent to sex. Also, the danger of abuse (the adult could generally speaking more easily manipulate or scare the child into agreeing to have sex) is too great, as is the risk of a negative impact on the child both emotionally and physically.

Some time ago I defended Catholicism--no jokes, please.

My defense of pedophilia: Sex is pleasure a just like any other (eating is the most readily comparable); provided birth-control is used, why should a child be unable to give legal consent to indulge in sexual intercourse with an older partner?

Eating does not cause long term mental trauma when it happens before the person is ready without any benefits for the person that age

Eating does not cause long term mental trauma when it happens before the person is ready without any benefits for the person that age

You are implying that consensual sex causes mental trauma when performed before a certain age? a source, if you please.

You fail.

You fail from the very beginning.

Devil's advocate is not a pure metaphor. And what do you think he is supposed to do? Announce "I really want this guy locked up or executed, but I'm going to say a few words for him to make it look legitimate"? No. It's not advocacy. It was never the idea. Devil's advocate is the one who has the capability to take this duty seriously and actually defend him.

Don't flatter yourself. You aren't one.

You've put up a safeguard, announced that you don't mean any of your "defense" - and how can a defense that's not meant to be defense possibly have any effect? It can't. You're not the advocate. You're a prosecutor, standing in the advocate's place, prosecuting the one who has already been convicted and executed. You're meaningless.

If you want to defend something, even something you don't support, take it seriously. Put yourself on the line. Don't leave any ground to retreat to. Take it to the end.

Why?

What if birth-control is used and the ramifications are explained?



Not possible ... at that age they do not have the capacity to understand and turn that into an informed decision.

You are implying that consensual sex causes mental trauma when performed before a certain age? a source, if you please.
Source? Is that all you need?
http://www.findingstone.com/allkindsofstuff/childabuse/index.htm
http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/sexual_abuse.asp

You are implying that consensual sex causes mental trauma when performed before a certain age? a source, if you please.
It cant be consensual ... they do not have the framework to consent at that age nor fully understand the consequences

Hell at age 6 they have barely obtained full self awareness much less understand the consequences or the fact that their ARE consequences to actions


You are claiming that they can? based on what? surely not the behavior of real children nor any reputable source

Source? Is that all you need?
http://www.findingstone.com/allkindsofstuff/childabuse/index.htm
http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/sexual_abuse.asp

Most of these cases involve rape.

Not possible ... at that age they do not have the capacity to understand and turn that into an informed decision.

Understand what? the procreation process?

Understand what? the procreation process?

The mental impact, the emotional impact that comes with it ... sex is not simply a physical action but a mental one

Depending on the person the impact is different but for the average human it is an act of closeness

if it was only phisical it would not been nearly as impactful it would be simple mechanics

Most of these cases involve rape.

As they are not capable of consent it is rape

Most of these cases involve rape.

...that is because when you have sex with a child they call it rape.

whatever age offends your notion of propriety--but if we must be definitive, let us say 6-9 (assuming the intercourse would not adversely affect the child physically).

are you fucking serious???!??

are you fucking serious???!??

Sure, why not? Your average 6-year-old weighs a good 45, maybe even 50 pounds, although I have some in my class that weigh as little as 35, boys and girls. What adverse physiological effects could there be if such a child had sex with an adult who is probably two or five times their size?

Sure, why not? Your average 6-year-old weighs a good 45, maybe even 50 pounds, although I have some in my class that weigh as little as 35, boys and girls. What adverse physiological effects could there be if such a child had sex with an adult who is probably two or five times their size?

And besides physiological effects, what about psychological effects?

Isnt this very obvious???

The mental impact, the emotional impact that comes with it ... sex is not simply a physical action but a mental one

Depending on the person the impact is different but for the average human it is an act of closeness

if it was only phisical it would not been nearly as impactful it would be simple mechanics

But most of the mental impact is created by poets, religion, and society in general. An unconditioned six-year-old is not going to be adversely affected by few bouts of stimulation (obviously what I just said is debatable, but I cannot think of any reason it would be untrue).

As they are not capable of consent it is rape

So those cannot be truly used, since they consider the psychological effects sex in the cases of children willing and desiring to engage in copulation the same as children being sodomized against their will.

Sure, why not? Your average 6-year-old weighs a good 45, maybe even 50 pounds, although I have some in my class that weigh as little as 35, boys and girls. What adverse physiological effects could there be if such a child had sex with an adult who is probably two or five times their size?

So this is the objection? you have no qualm concerning prepubescent "head"?

are you fucking serious???!??

No, though you made a fine use of the obscenity.

So those cannot be truly used, since they consider the psychological effects sex in the cases of children willing and desiring to engage in copulation the same as children being sodomized against their will.

One time I did read a person's description of her experiences as a child having sex with her grandfather. It was really freaky. She enjoyed it at the time but later in life was when it affected her.

But most of the mental impact is created by poets, religion, and society in general. An unconditioned six-year-old is not going to be adversely affected by few bouts of stimulation (obviously what I just said is debatable, but I cannot think of any reason it would be untrue).
Children are not blank slates. In those 6 years they have absorbed quite a lot of information and culture. That said, their thought processes are not those of an adult, they cannot reason like an adult they cannot give consent like an adult can. Your premise doesn't work because you are asking a child to function in a way that they are simply incapable of doing. It would be the same as asking someone who is deaf to listen and respond, or a blind person to read a sign without some sort of help. It just sin't going to happen. And because of that, yes, it is harmful.

One time I did read a person's description of her experiences as a child having sex with her grandfather. It was really freaky. She enjoyed it at the time but later in life was when it affected her.

I would be affected if I engaged in the same the thing at my present age.

Children are not blank slates. In those 6 years they have absorbed quite a lot of information and culture. That said, their thought processes are not those of an adult, they cannot reason like an adult they cannot give consent like an adult can.

They cannot give consent to financial matters, or things like that. But can they not for a mere physical pleasure?

Your premise doesn't work because you are asking a child to function in a way that they are simply incapable of doing. It would be the same as asking someone who is deaf to listen and respond, or a blind person to read a sign without some sort of help. It just sin't going to happen.

Are you saying the child could not experience any pleasure? I believe I have already dealt with this argument.

And because of that, yes, it is harmful.

I do not see why a deaf person who listens to music is psychologically harmed.

I would be affected if I engaged in the same the thing at my present age.

Ya I kno
But she was a child and didn't have the sense to realize it would affect her in the future and she consented.

Ya I kno
But she was a child and didn't have the sense to realize it would affect her in the future and she consented.

I do not believe incest is legal, or that I am arguing that it should be for minors.

They cannot give consent to financial matters, or things like that. But can they not for a mere physical pleasure?
It is not mere physical pleasure.

Are you saying the child could not experience any pleasure? I believe I have already dealt with this argument.
No, I did not and I will thank you for not putting words in my mouth, especially when you are just using them to construct a piss-poor strawman.

I do not see why a deaf person who listens to music is psychologically harmed.
I normally would't say this, but I think it's merited here. Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's the point! And there goes wizzing by over your head!

Read that carefully again, I did not claim that the deaf are psychologically harmed by listening to music, nor did I suggest that having sex is somehow akin to it. I said that children are incapable of consenting to sex. Asking them to reason as an adult, which is the moral and legal justification for giving consent, is impposable as asking the deaf to listen to music or the blind to see or the wheelchair bound to walk. Your whole attempt to argue that there is no harm is based upon the notion that a child can consent, they are unable to do that. If they cannot give consent, any sex becomes rape.

It is not mere physical pleasure.

Please elaborate.

No, I did not and I will thank you for not putting words in my mouth, especially when you are just using them to construct a piss-poor strawman.

Please excuse me, as I confused your meaning.


I normally would't say this, but I think it's merited here. Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's the point! And there goes wizzing by over your head!
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/img/1877-2.gif


Read that carefully again, I did not claim that the deaf are psychologically harmed by listening to music, nor did I suggest that having sex is somehow akin to it. I said that children are incapable of consenting to sex.

Why? Please refrain from metaphors.

Asking them to reason as an adult, which is the moral and legal justification for giving consent, is impposable as asking the deaf to listen to music or the blind to see or the wheelchair bound to walk. Your whole attempt to argue that there is no harm is based upon the notion that a child can consent, they are unable to do that. If they cannot give consent, any sex becomes rape.

And the eating of ice-cream becomes forced-feeding? The child is not old enough to give consent.

So this is the objection? you have no qualm concerning prepubescent "head"?

I've already replied to your original query. This was just an additional point.

And the eating of ice-cream becomes forced-feeding? The child is not old enough to give consent.

Please do not construe this as a personal attack, because I don't mean it as one, but I think one of the problems we're running into in this discussion is that, frankly, your personal feelings about and understanding of sex are quite different than the majority's. Your position almost seems like that of a child who cannot really comprehend the nature of sexuality.

Please do not construe this as a personal attack, because I don't mean it as one, but I think one of the problems we're running into in this discussion is that, frankly, your personal feelings about and understanding of sex are quite different than the majority's.

I admit they are, a bit. I think there is too much of a social feeling of sex as "magical", and the idea that sex is a mark of maturation. Personally, I quite against the legalization of pedophilia relationships, but I am also willing to attack the reasons most persons are against the relationships.

Your position almost seems like that of a child who cannot really comprehend the nature of sexuality.

You may damn be right! still, this is not a compelling argument. Should an indefinable "specialness" about sex felt by the majority decide laws?

I admit they are, a bit. I think there is too much of a social feeling of sex as "magical", and the idea that sex is a mark of maturation.


Well, sex and emotion really go hand and hand, and though some people may disagree, the best part about sex is the intimate love that goes with it. Sex is, for the majority of people I would say, is a scary and selfconscious thing, especially when you first start having it. That's nothing a child should have to handle.

Well, sex and emotion really go hand and hand, and though some people may disagree, the best part about sex is the intimate love that goes with it.

A fine philosophical concept. I know return to the legal argument.

Sex is, for the majority of people I would say, is a scary and selfconscious thing, especially when you first start having it. That's nothing a child should have to handle.

"Have to" is incorrect. Should the majority's insecurities decide laws concerning what would obviously be a select few?

"Have to" is incorrect. Should the majority's insecurities decide laws concerning what would obviously be a select few?

Honestly, this has all been addressed by everybody.

Laws are made for the majority. Period.

Sex is more than physical. Period.

A child cannot comprehend the complexities of sex. Period.

Any argument you have for minorities (of apparent genius children who could potentially understand sex) just creating a gaping hole for abuse.

Honestly, this has all been addressed by everybody.

Laws are made for the majority. Period.

One could use this argument to justify slavery.

Sex is more than physical. Period.

Biologically? legally?

A child cannot comprehend the complexities of sex. Period.

What "complexities"? we are not talking about "relationships" here.

Any argument you have for minorities (of apparent genius children who could potentially understand sex) just creating a gaping hole for abuse.

This is the only sentence I find valid. I therefor counter it with

A: Parental supervision and approval.

B: Heavy legal regulation.

Your position almost seems like that of a child who cannot really comprehend the nature of sexuality.

Actually, his position is quite adult. Sex is not merely, nor solely, the magical act of love and intimacy Hallmark likes to promote so much. A lot of people fuck for fun - and not solely in a "till death do us part" marriage of love.

The whole mystical aura of sex being something you solely do out of love is artificially constructed and does not even correspond to reality. It is just something we tell children.

One could use this argument to justify slavery.
And it did for a long time. The majority decides in a democracy- that doesn't mean its always just.


Biologically? legally? Legally, I'm not sure. But sex is certainly more than physical. There is a mental emotion connection, as with everything.





What "complexities"? we are not talking about "relationships" here.
The mental and emotion repercussions of sex. I don't know how you can deny that they exist.




This is the only sentence I find valid. I therefor counter it with
A: Parental supervision and approval.
B: Heavy legal regulation.

A. So, if a child is incapable of making that decision, a parent can decide to have sex with that child.. because its up to parental supervision and approval?
B. How do you suggest we regulate private issues like sex? That sounds like child prostitution.

Actually, his position is quite adult. Sex is not merely, nor solely, the magical act of love and intimacy Hallmark likes to promote so much. A lot of people fuck for fun - and not solely in a "till death do us part" marriage of love.

The whole mystical aura of sex being something you solely do out of love is artificially constructed and does not even correspond to reality. It is just something we tell children.

This is true, but you can't say there is no emotion to it at all.

Actually, his position is quite adult. Sex is not merely, nor solely, the magical act of love and intimacy Hallmark likes to promote so much. A lot of people fuck for fun - and not solely in a "till death do us part" marriage of love.

The whole mystical aura of sex being something you solely do out of love is artificially constructed and does not even correspond to reality. It is just something we tell children.

^This.

Christ, in every thread I take an unpopular side it seems you chose to defend me. Is being the Devil's Advocate your hobby as it is mine?

And it did for a long time. The majority decides in a democracy- that doesn't mean its always just.

Indeed. I think the majority should have a heavier set of checks-and-balances restricting it.

Legally, I'm not sure.

Which is why this is not an excellent argument.

But sex is certainly more than physical. There is a mental emotion connection, as with everything.

According to the rules of the society involved; but to an unconditioned child, the mental connection would probably be as great as a game of Candy Land.


The mental and emotion repercussions of sex. I don't know how you can deny that they exist.

Until I see studies proving them inherent, I will consider the long-term repercussions inventions of our culture (guilt is a fine example).

A. So, if a child is incapable of making that decision, a parent can decide to have sex with that child.. because its up to parental supervision and approval?

Incest? no....

B. How do you suggest we regulate private issues like sex? That sounds like child prostitution.

That is a financial issue. I mean that we could see to it that children use birth control, are not physically damaged, ect.

Christ, in every thread I take an unpopular side it seems you chose to defend me. Is being the Devil's Advocate your hobby as it is mine?

Hell yes ;) Though where the pedo debate is concerned I also tend to get a tad bit annoyed by, as well as fear, the huge number of people that seem to lose all capacity for reason and objectivity, remaining only capable of uttering circular reasoning and "pedos are filth" blabla.

As I said earlier: well thought out arguments can do far more to hurt Nambla and friends.

I mean that we could see to it that children use birth control, are not physically damaged, ect.

Ignoring absolutely everything else, I can't imagine pumping hormones into a child that hasn't reached puberty is good for their bodies...

Ignoring absolutely everything else, I can't imagine pumping hormones into a child that hasn't reached puberty is good for their bodies...

No, it probably would not be. Back to topic....

No, it probably would not be. Back to topic....

How is it off topic? The most successful forms of birth control involve hormones

Hell yes ;) Though where the pedo debate is concerned I also tend to get a tad bit annoyed by, as well as fear, the huge number of people that seem to lose all capacity for reason and objectivity, remaining only capable of uttering circular reasoning and "pedos are filth" blabla.

As I said earlier: well thought out arguments can do far more to hurt Nambla and friends.

It seems that most persons do not consider a logical argument to be necessary in the case of denouncing something, so long as that something is considered morally reprehensible to the many. I keep hearing a round-about phrasing of "sex is about true love, and a child does not understand true love". If sex is about mental development, then dogs should be banned from engaging in the practice.

How is it off topic? The most successful forms of birth control involve hormones

Then do not use them.

Condoms, plus a quick medical check ex post facto to determine the presence of any possible trace of an impregnation, and eradicate it.

Anti-pædophilia laws are forbidden under the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution. Any argument for the laws on the basis of morality is irrelevant.

Why bring consent into it? Adults make children do numerous things without consent - if sexual intercourse is merely some simple physical pleasure, as you seem to be arguing, why should this violation of consent be any different from the other countless violations of consent over trivial matters that children experience?

Whatever age offends your notion of propriety--but if we must be definitive, let us say 6-9 (assuming the intercourse would not adversely affect the child physically).


I'll give you a straight up answer. Children at that age can actually be seriously harmed by...well...an older man having intercourse with them (broken pelvis being the most frequent injury for young girls). Another reason is the psychological trauma inflicted upon the child by undergoing such an act. Even if they feel its consensual (spelling?), very frequently the child grows up with numerous traits, among them extreme bitterness, an uncurable sense of self-loathing, depression, and other unpleasentries. This isn't always the case, some people I imagine would just kinda shrug it off. The only reason I brought up the psychological aspect (I am not a psychology major so this is admittedly out of my area) is because an old girlfriend of mine worked at a boys and girls club with children who had undergone sexual abuse at a young age. Some of them admitted that they were okay with it at the time, it didn't bother them until they got older and it REALLY affected them.

Just my take...maybe at the time its fine but apparantly later in life it really bothers them.


Why bring consent into it? Adults make children do numerous things without consent - if sexual intercourse is merely some simple physical pleasure, as you seem to be arguing, why should this violation of consent be any different from the other countless violations of consent over trivial matters that children experience?

I don't care if thats purely devil's advocate or not thats still terrible lol

I'll give you a straight up answer. Children at that age can actually be seriously harmed by...well...an older man having intercourse with them (broken pelvis being the most frequent injury for young girls). Another reason is the psychological trauma inflicted upon the child by undergoing such an act. Even if they feel its consensual (spelling?), very frequently the child grows up with numerous traits, among them extreme bitterness, an uncurable sense of self-loathing, depression, and other unpleasentries. This isn't always the case, some people I imagine would just kinda shrug it off. The only reason I brought up the psychological aspect (I am not a psychology major so this is admittedly out of my area) is because an old girlfriend of mine worked at a boys and girls club with children who had undergone sexual abuse at a young age. Some of them admitted that they were okay with it at the time, it didn't bother them until they got older and it REALLY affected them.

Just my take...maybe at the time its fine but apparantly later in life it really bothers them.

Many persons also are beset with guilt if they masturbate, and an even greater number are bothered by sexual activity they partook of in high-school.

I don't care if thats purely devil's advocate or not thats still terrible lol

Silly, too. A parent's responsibility is to raise a child; a child is not required to please a parent.

Some time ago I defended Catholicism--no jokes, please.

My defense of pedophilia: Sex is pleasure a just like any other (eating is the most readily comparable); provided birth-control is used, why should a child be unable to give legal consent to indulge in sexual intercourse with an older partner?


Because consensual sex is not just an act of the body. It's also an act of the mind. The mind of prepubescent humans isn't just ready to accept the sexual layer of love.
Also, it's easy for an adult to abuse of the prepubescent's lack of experience and still-forming personality to coax him/her into a sexual act, hence we cannot be sure of the ability of the prepubescent to give/negate consent.

Still, I think that we could discuss about sex between two prepubescent kids. In this case, the risks of exploitation are reduced.