Pedophilia is not a mental disease.

[Dre89]

Hold on, I'm not saying disagreeing with what's best for us is a mental disorder, that's just poor reasoning.

The difference between the two is that sexuality is a mental state which cannot be altered by conscious thought. Although we know now that sexuality has psychological influences, one's particular sexuality is still involuntary. That's why things like tourette syndrome are considered disorders, it's an involuntary mental state. Whereas with poor reasoning, it is a voluntary state. If someone's capacity to reason is handicapped to the point that we'd consider a mental disorder (for example an adult whose brain stopped developing at three years old), that's a mental disorder because the handicapped capacity for reason is involuntary.

Now that doesn't prove homosexuality and pedophilia specifically are necessarily disorders, but it proves that sexualities can be disorders.

Just curious, do you guys think that with certain societal changes, anorexia could become no longer a mental disorder?

 

[_Keno_]

Spoiler

I'm just going to drop talking about homosexuality with you, for the sake of the topic.

Now that doesn't prove homosexuality and pedophilia specifically are necessarily disorders, but it proves that sexualities can be disorders.

It only shows that all sexualities are involuntary, it doesn't remotely prove that sexualities can be mental disorders.

That's a mental disorder because the handicapped capacity for reason is involuntary.

And what is involuntary for pedophiles? The mental state of preferring younger people over older people? When I go to Baskin Robbins for ice cream, I am in the mental state of preferring Pistachio Almond over Vanilla. It is an uncommon preference, and it isnt a preference I can change, yet I would never call it a disorder.

 

[El Nino]

That's why things like tourette syndrome are considered disorders, it's an involuntary mental state. Whereas with poor reasoning, it is a voluntary state. If someone's capacity to reason is handicapped to the point that we'd consider a mental disorder (for example an adult whose brain stopped developing at three years old), that's a mental disorder because the handicapped capacity for reason is involuntary.

The assumption is that to mentally develop beyond three years old is desirable. That depends on the values of the community. If the goal of the community is to retain childlike traits, then the mental state you describe would not be considered a handicap within that community.

Just curious, do you guys think that with certain societal changes, anorexia could become no longer a mental disorder?

There is one interesting case written about by Dr. Oliver Sacks in which a male patient developed a tumor in his brain that prevented him from forming new memories. This patient was living with a group of spiritualists who practiced meditation, and they considered his constant serene state as something desirable because he seemed completely untroubled by the world.

 

[Dre89]

Nice post, but you still conveniently avoided the question.

 

[Sucumbio]

Pedophilia can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to heterosexual or homosexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses. -source

So basically you can try and argue against 130 years of research and findings, but you'd be simultaneously dismissing the concept that an act which causes harm is an act born from disturbia.

 

[_Keno_]

These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm

I don't think I've ever seen any evidence that all pedophilic acts cause harm. Obviously, I've seen that sexual molestation causes harm, but I've also seen that men ****** women causes harm.
I will agree with you completely if you can explain how even completely consensually pedophilic acts cause harm.

 

[Spire]

@OP - so by that extent, do you support easing punishment on pedophiles? If they're naturally pedophiles and can't be cured of it, should we just allow it? Of course not. But what problem does this create? Keeping natural rights from people.

See, even if it is a natural phenomenon, it needs a lie or to woven into it so the public will continue to think that it's a mental disorder. If you lock someone away because of their nature, then that's a crime against humanity and you're headed down the nazi path.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

@OP - so by that extent, do you support easing punishment on pedophiles? If they're naturally pedophiles and can't be cured of it, should we just allow it? Of course not. But what problem does this create? Keeping natural rights from people.

See, even if it is a natural phenomenon, it needs a lie or to woven into it so the public will continue to think that it's a mental disorder. If you lock someone away because of their nature, then that's a crime against humanity and you're headed down the nazi path.

If someone is so infuriated by someone that they want to kill him, and they know it's wrong, but they do it anyway, should the punishment be any more lenient? I don't think so.
Even though you were born (I'm assuming my own stance for this) with this, it doesn't make it any less wrong to ACT on your thoughts. Pedophiles know that molesting children is wrong.

Pedophiles are not all ruthless monsters who abuse young children. Just as you have a ton of closet homosexuals, you'll have many, many more closet pedophiles, because coming out as a pedophile isn't that good for your reputation. I think we should be more open to pedophiles coming out, but not actually causing any harm.

On the contrary, though, there is a problem with pedophiles who don't actually go out molesting children, but rather watching it from their own computer. Most of the time the children who are in pictures, depicting child pornography, are being abused of forced to do this. This is also harmful.
I guess you could say that I'm a bit tossed on this subject, but your question, I am 100% convinced that a pedophile should not receive an easier punishment because it's supposedly in their nature.

I don't know how, but you know the DH/PG so well already.

Hahaha, well, I've used the Debate Hall before. I haven't posted here, but I did lurk it. I had some papers/presentations in school where I had to present a controversial subject and give arguments from both sides. The Debate Hall was an amazing source, with people linking to other articles which also helped.

I'd like to thank you guys for that !

 

[1048576]

Who, exactly, is harmed when someone looks at fictional CP?

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

I thought it was fairly clear that I wasn't talking about lolicon .

I'm talking about real life pictures. I'm all for lolicon because it actually gives pedophiles a way to relieve their "strain" without doing any harm.

 

[Dre89]

Who, exactly, is harmed when someone looks at fictional CP?

Can I just ask, why does not violating another's rights serve as the only condition to meet for an act to be deemed morally permissable?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

because otherwise you make a huge assumption about the nature of morals

if you say it's wrong because you harm somebody, then that somebody can say they've been wronged.

but if you harm nobody, directly or indirectly, then who is wronged? you really have no basis to say that the harmless act is wrong other than "well I think what you're doing is wrong so it's wrong."

 

[1048576]

Basically that.

I'm a utilitarian, though, so I believe that not all things which cause harm to another person are bad. Certain things, like taxing the rich (to a point) are good because the good they cause to others exceeds the harm they cause to the rich. I can accept not following that belief. I guess I would justify it by saying that for those who are wronged, there are more other people who are negative wronged, so the outcome is the opposite of harm.

Edit: I'm amazed that nobody here has objected to fictional CP so far. Even AltF4 (who I agree with on most things) says that the issue has made him consider that censorship on the grounds that an act is overly vile might be morally sound.

 

[Dre89]

Again, why does someone have to be wronged for an action to be wrong?

Saying someone needs to be wronged for an action to be wrong is just as much enforcing your opinion as any other moral theory. Just because it's simpler doesn't mean it's an less of an opinion.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

because directly harming someone else only requires the assumption that people have natural rights, and that harming someone else violates that person's rights.

if you do not harm anybody else, you have not violated anyone's rights. To call such an action wrong would require further assumptions, possibly that a deity or a higher power forbids it, therefore it is wrong. I would reject such an assumption, as it is not a fact.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't think I've ever seen any evidence that all pedophilic acts cause harm. Obviously, I've seen that sexual molestation causes harm, but I've also seen that men ****** women causes harm.
I will agree with you completely if you can explain how even completely consensually pedophilic acts cause harm.

Heh, well... there's an issue of course with your premise. Technically speaking it is impossible for a child to consent to sex. So, you've introduced a paradox into your criterion: a consensual act of pedophilia. Now if you wish me to defend the idea that children cannot consent to sex, that's a different approach. The idea that pedophilia is a mental disorder comes from the school of Psychology, which is to say that it comes from a plethora of sources - observational (case studies); scientific (MRI scans of the brains of "normal" people vs pedophiles; etc. This does not necessarily validate the position.

Another way to look at this... Psychologists essentially define normality. We look to their studies and 'evidence' to understand what it is to be normal. Deviation from that, leads to the prescribing of medicines, and counseling. IS it actually okay to be entrusting society's mental rank to a single class of professionals? Part of me says no, that in all honesty only we can decide as individuals if we're normal. What IS normal, really, other than someone else's opinion, in other words. But another part of me realizes that with enough scientific and observational findings, patterns -can- be identified and remarked upon. Conclusions -can- be drawn upon to act as a guideline for members of society.

So, long story short, pedophilia is a mental disorder because psychologists say so. So too is depression, bi-polarism, anorexia, schizophrenia, etc. These all have one thing in common. They are treatable. The difficulty with pedophilia is that the current treatment focuses on suppression rather than elimination. Why? Well frankly it's tempting to say that it's because it's not a mental disorder so it won't respond to classical treatments (drugs, therapy, etc.) just the same as you can't "cure" homosexuality. But tempting as it may be, it's inaccurate, because of the harmful natural of the acts of pedophiles. Therefore the inclination is that science and psychology simply have not found the answer. It's honestly in its infancy in terms of treatment. We're still in the discovery phase, and it's not unlike the tongue-in-cheek sketch by Monty Python about how to tell a witch. MAYBE the brain is different. There seems to be some differences. But nothing truly conclusive can be proven, so the "cure" is still to focus on not acting on the impulses.

Inmates for instance can either opt for or in some states be forced to be chemically castrated. There' s programs also. There's also literature, though the focus of most books will be for victims of sexual abuse who because of it became child molesters themselves.

I realize that all of this still does hinge on the notion that the acts of pedophiles are harmful. But alas this is something you must simply assume to be true for the rest to fit. If you challenge that notion, then really what you're challenging is the school of Psychology's precedent, and to that I'd simply say, sure don't believe it, but it's not something I can really argue for or against, because I assume Psychology to be a sound source of wisdom and insight into the human mind and of human behavior.

 

[ballin4life]

Again, why does someone have to be wronged for an action to be wrong?

Saying someone needs to be wronged for an action to be wrong is just as much enforcing your opinion as any other moral theory. Just because it's simpler doesn't mean it's an less of an opinion.

Not really. You are the one that wants to use force to stop other people from doing something. You are the aggressor in this case.

Of course one can say that posting on smashboards or (insert victimless "crime" here) is immoral. We are saying that according to our own moral views the person who uses force to stop a victimless "crime" is the one in the wrong.

For a utilitarian justification of this see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle and related links.

 

[_Keno_]

Heh, well... there's an issue of course with your premise. Technically speaking it is impossible for a child to consent to sex. So, you've introduced a paradox into your criterion: a consensual act of pedophilia.

Yeah, I was talking about reality, not politics.

Now if you wish me to defend the idea that children cannot consent to sex, that's a different approach. The idea that pedophilia is a mental disorder comes from the school of Psychology, which is to say that it comes from a plethora of sources - observational (case studies); scientific (MRI scans of the brains of "normal" people vs pedophiles; etc. This does not necessarily validate the position. Another way to look at this... Psychologists essentially define normality. We look to their studies and 'evidence' to understand what it is to be normal. Deviation from that, leads to the prescribing of medicines, and counseling. IS it actually okay to be entrusting society's mental rank to a single class of professionals? Part of me says no, that in all honesty only we can decide as individuals if we're normal. What IS normal, really, other than someone else's opinion, in other words. But another part of me realizes that with enough scientific and observational findings, patterns -can- be identified and remarked upon. Conclusions -can- be drawn upon to act as a guideline for members of society.

I researched this a while back, and becomes apparent that psychologists only use convicted child molesters as their "pedophile" group. Even Dre. agrees with me that these studies are tantamount to studying only rapists in order to learn about sexuality. The results are bias garbage.

 

[El Nino]

Nice post, but you still conveniently avoided the question.

The answer is implied.

Can I just ask, why does not violating another's rights serve as the only condition to meet for an act to be deemed morally permissable?

Regardless of "moral theory," the violation of personal rights is the basis of enforced law in most modern democratic societies. Since the OP mentioned rehabilitation programs, it makes sense that this discussion has focused more on law and policy than on moral theory.

Again, why does someone have to be wronged for an action to be wrong?

Saying someone needs to be wronged for an action to be wrong is just as much enforcing your opinion as any other moral theory. Just because it's simpler doesn't mean it's an less of an opinion.

Have you proposed an alternate moral theory? Or reason why we should adopt that theory?

 

[1048576]

How about if I claim that terrorism is good. You can take it back up the chain as far as you want, but you can't show that assertion to be false.

Philosophy is useless.

 

[Dre89]

Funny thing is, the modern idea that morality is just about not harming others actually came from philosophy.

You guys are still saying that morality has a specific structure.

Assuming there are 6 apples in a basket requires just as much justification as assuming there are 8 apples. Just because you assume less in terms of quantity, doesn't mean your assumption automatically has more quality.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

There's a difference between assuming something logically and just assuming something out of the blue

Violating human rights. if we assume people have human rights, then violating them is wrong. this is something I hope we can all agree on.

now I ask what do you base your definition of "wrong" on? In response to your last statement, what exactly are you assuming to say that something that doesn't harm anybody else is wrong? What's the justification for this judgement?

 

[Grandeza]

Well, when looking for a system of morality, we want a practical one that is fair. We don't want people to go around violating other peoples' rights which I assume no one will argue. So no matter what system of morality you propose you will be enforcing your system onto other people who may or may not agree with it. If you make a stricter moral code, you would be forcing more of your morals onto others than, say, a simpler moral code. For example, I can say you can't do x and y, which enforces my morals on you. Now if I just say you can't do x, I'm not enforcing as much onto you.

Any system should prevent you from infringing upon each others' rights. For a functioning society with inalienable rights this is a necessity. Where do we go from there when setting up more moral rules? Do we have to look further than just don't infringe upon your fellow man's rights? The more restrictions you put down, the more you force upon people. If others disagree with this system and want more restrictions to put down, they are of course free to restrict themselves from any actions they consider immoral. They just can't force others to not engage in such activities. I would think this system is the most practical while enforcing relatively little on others. What system would be a better alternative?

 

[Dre89]

The problem is you're using your moral belief to justify your moral belief.

You're assuming infringing on other people's rights is wrong, then saying your system is the best because it violates the least amount of rights.

If you want to get into a moral debate, then we should probably make another thread.

 

[DanteFox]

because otherwise you make a huge assumption about the nature of morals

if you say it's wrong because you harm somebody, then that somebody can say they've been wronged.

but if you harm nobody, directly or indirectly, then who is wronged? you really have no basis to say that the harmless act is wrong other than "well I think what you're doing is wrong so it's wrong."

just like you have no basis to say that a harmful act is wrong other than "well I think what you're doing is wrong so it's wrong." All moral statements have an assumption at their core that can't be proven by logic. Yours happens to be that it's wrong to harm someone.

 

[Grandeza]

The problem is you're using your moral belief to justify your moral belief.

You're assuming infringing on other people's rights is wrong, then saying your system is the best because it violates the least amount of rights.

If you want to get into a moral debate, then we should probably make another thread.

If someone were to make a thread on it, I'd be more than happy to participate in the discussion.

 

[ballin4life]

Dre, I'm not sure what your point is.

I can say that I think that eating ice cream is wrong, or wearing blue hats is wrong, or whatever, and you can say that watching cartoon porn is wrong. A few people made statements that said that something is only wrong if it harms someone else. It's all just opinion, right?

 

[DanteFox]

that's exactly right. Moral statements all come down to subjective values.

 

[1048576]

ITT: useless BS.

Also, I think Dre was the first person to introduce right and wrong into this thread. Looking back at all my posts I've only claimed that pedophilia, and some associated actions, don't cause harm.

 

[Dre89]

Hold on how can people know what my assumptions are, and claim that they're not based on logic, when I haven't even put them forward in this thread?

And I love how people feel like they can say "morality is just about subjective values" without needing to justify that claim at all. If you're argument is that everyone has different views, then the surpressed premise is that descriptive ethics= normative ethics, which still needs to be justified.

If I remember correctly, I brought it up because 104 said fictional child porn should be allowed because it doesn't harm anyone. I took issue with the immediate (and modern) assumption that not harming anyone= morally permissable. That conclusion can certainly be logically sustained in a debate, just like most positions I disagree with, but I take issue when it is just assumed without such logical foundation.

104- I don't understand why you have to be so rude all the time. No one has provoked you, no one was aggressive to you first. I don't understand what there is to gain by being so aggressive all the time. You would probably be in the DH by now if you weren't so rude, because you're certainly intelligent enough.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

Can I just ask, why does not violating another's rights serve as the only condition to meet for an act to be deemed morally permissable?

What I'm wondering here, is why wouldn't it be?
An act isn't "(morally) wrong" by default. An act is morally permissable, until it is not deemed permissable. I don't think the question is "why would it be the only condition to make the action permissable?", but instead "what is it that would make the act morally wrong?"

Dre., what in the act of looking at fictional child pornography would make it morally wrong to do?


As for you asking me why not violating another's rights being the only condition for it to be morally passable: I simply don't see any other reason why it wouldn't be, so maybe if you can provide one (or more) I could argue against it.


Also, guys, I've seen this morality debate pop up more than once, I think you guys should make a thread on it, or if there already is one, maybe revive it.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Hold on how can people know what my assumptions are, and claim that they're not based on logic, when I haven't even put them forward in this thread?

The burden of proof lies on the accuser to say what is wrong and how something is wrong.

You have not claimed that something that doesn't harm anything else cannot be wrong, but you have strongly implied it in your posts.

I ask that if you support this claim, you make your point CLEARLY and state your assumptions. I would like to see how you would prove something that doesn't harm anything else can be wrong.

 

[Dre89]

What I'm wondering here, is why wouldn't it be?
An act isn't "(morally) wrong" by default. An act is morally permissable, until it is not deemed permissable. I don't think the question is "why would it be the only condition to make the action permissable?", but instead "what is it that would make the act morally wrong?"

Dre., what in the act of looking at fictional child pornography would make it morally wrong to do?


As for you asking me why not violating another's rights being the only condition for it to be morally passable: I simply don't see any other reason why it wouldn't be, so maybe if you can provide one (or more) I could argue against it.


Also, guys, I've seen this morality debate pop up more than once, I think you guys should make a thread on it, or if there already is one, maybe revive it.

No, an act is morally neutral until proven otherwise.

The answer to your other questions should be addressed in the new morality thread.

Pimp- The BoP is not on me, because I didn't come here to prove anything. As I stated previously, what I take issue with is not that you believe not harming others= moral permissability, it's that it was assumed to be the case without justification, which indicates the influence of modern culture on the debater.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Not at all. The BoP lies on the accuser to prove his case that something immoral happened. Things are okay until shown to be wrong, not wrong until shown to be right.

You are allowed to do something until it is shown that what you're doing is wrong, just as you are innocent until proven guilty.

You have to prove or show how something is wrong before it can be judged as wrong.

If you can't prove that something that doesn't harm others is wrong, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Is that justification enough?

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah, I was talking about reality, not politics.

... hm. Okay, so what you're saying is that a child CAN consent to sex? This is a bold statement for many reasons. The "politics" (it's the law, btw, not just some political tool) involved in the so-called Age of Consent determination involves more than arbitrary reasoning. Children do experience sexual desires, though they do not recognize them as such. Children become sexually excited, etc. It's a natural part of human biology. The difficulty is that in prepubescent children, the sexual episodes/urges, etc are precursors to adult sexuality, not an indication that it's okay to be having sex. Not only is it unhealthy for children to have sex, and especially girls, but the emotional and mental implications are equally detrmental. Sex as you know is meant for procreation and as a symbol of affection between lovers. Beyond this is where you get into unhealthy sexual practice, such as intercourse for power (****), due to obsession (the sex addict), molesting (touching children for sexual gratification), etc. This isn't just a psychologist's viewpoint, it's common sense. It just so happens that psychologists have the job and authority to put fancy words to the actions, in an attempt to define the nature of it; to label it.

I researched this a while back, and becomes apparent that psychologists only use convicted child molesters as their "pedophile" group. Even Dre. agrees with me that these studies are tantamount to studying only rapists in order to learn about sexuality. The results are bias garbage.

Actually I'm not sure I agree. You see, **** is violent crime. It speaks nothing to sexuality. So using it to study sexuality would be useless. Molestation on the other hand isn't always about power, nor is always violent. There are plenty (unfortunately) men and women who get off touching little kids, or being touched by them.

Also, looking at convicted child molesters is useful because the only difference between a convicted child molester and a non-convicted one is that the non-one's haven't been caught! They're both the same type of people. Child molesters. It is literally impossible to engage in a pedophilic act and not also be a child molester outright, or by association. In other words, if you're touching a kid and getting off, you're a molester. If you're spanking to kiddy porn, you're perpetuating the molesting of kids. Even something that may on the surface seem "harmless" such as Dre.'s example of a person getting off to watching a kid's TV show, is a danger to society. Same with any other seemingly harmless "outlet." Why? Because allowing a pedophile to have an outlet results in escalation of their perversion, which ultimately -can- lead to an act of ****, molestation, etc. It's too big of a chance to take, and as members of a society, we have a duty and responsibility to protect our children for predators who would do harm.

Now if you can find me an example of a 6 year old who has the mental and emotional capacity of an adult AND the advanced biology of a post-pubescent human... then I'd say sure, they're fair game. Creepy, but fair, because they aren't really a child at that point, they're just a super-young adult. The real point is that adults should only be having sex with other adults. I won't bother guessing what age adult is adult, because classically speaking, it ranges. But there's no mistaking a child, so it should be self evident.

 

[_Keno_]

Pimp, I'm not sure you read Dre.'s post correctly, he said moral issues are neutral until proven permissible or not. He never said that it was wrong. I agree with Dre. on this point.

(I'll reply to Sucumbio in a few minutes).

Okay, so what you're saying is that a child CAN consent to sex? This is a bold statement for many reasons. The "politics" (it's the law, btw, not just some political tool) involved in the so-called Age of Consent determination involves more than arbitrary reasoning. Children do experience sexual desires, though they do not recognize them as such. Children become sexually excited, etc. It's a natural part of human biology. The difficulty is that in prepubescent children, the sexual episodes/urges, etc are precursors to adult sexuality, not an indication that it's okay to be having sex. Not only is it unhealthy for children to have sex, and especially girls, but the emotional and mental implications are equally detrimental. Sex as you know is meant for procreation and as a symbol of affection between lovers. Beyond this is where you get into unhealthy sexual practice, such as intercourse for power (****), due to obsession (the sex addict), molesting (touching children for sexual gratification), etc. This isn't just a psychologist's viewpoint, it's common sense. It just so happens that psychologists have the job and authority to put fancy words to the actions, in an attempt to define the nature of it; to label it.

I never said a child can consent to sex, just that you haven’t shown me that they cannot (and that I’ve never seen any evidence that they cannot). And I disagree that consensual sex will have negative effects on the children, mainly because I disagree that sex has some kind of transcendent meaning, and that anything other than that “purpose” is unhealthy.
Almost 100% of female children will not consent to sex, so why not just throw them out of our discussion? Can you tell me how a prepubescent boy will be harmed having consensual sex?

Also, looking at convicted child molesters is useful because the only difference between a convicted child molester and a non-convicted one is that the non-one's haven't been caught! They're both the same type of people. Child molesters. It is literally impossible to engage in a pedophilic act and not also be a child molester outright, or by association. In other words, if you're touching a kid and getting off, you're a molester. If you're spanking to kiddy porn, you're perpetuating the molesting of kids. Even something that may on the surface seem "harmless" such as Dre.'s example of a person getting off to watching a kid's TV show, is a danger to society. Same with any other seemingly harmless "outlet." Why? Because allowing a pedophile to have an outlet results in escalation of their perversion, which ultimately -can- lead to an act of ****, molestation, etc. It's too big of a chance to take, and as members of a society, we have a duty and responsibility to protect our children for predators who would do harm.

You seem to have no way of distinguishing between pedophiles and child molesters, and your definition of child molester is by far the broadest I’ve ever seen. In fact, you seem to think that every pedophile who even thinks about a child is automatically a child molester (and I can guarantee that every single human thinks about what they are attracted to). For you, does pedophile = child molester?
And did you just make this entire paragraph up? It is completely fabricated? Can you show me any evidence that anything you just said is factual? I, for one, completely disagree with it.

 

[ballin4life]

Parents "force" their children to do stuff all the time. "Clean your room", "play Little League", "Go to dance lessons", "practice your piano".

The difference between these and sex is merely how society views the action. Sex is not inherently violent, and it is possible to imagine a society where children can have sex (e.g. Brave New World).

Note that I am NOT saying that this would be a good thing by any means.

 

[1048576]

Going under the assumption that **** is bad...

Parent child relationships are bad. Children are inherently dependent on parents to have their needs met. Parents are in a position of power in that they can prevent children from meeting their needs and wants. Hence, if a parent has sex with a child, there is no way to distinguish whether or not it is a coercive act. Since there's a strong possibility that the child would not consent if he/she didn't feel obligated to have sex in order to have his/her needs met, there is a strong possibility that the child is being *****. Again, there's no way to distingush between which cases constitute **** and which don't, since we can't construct an alternate universe whereby the parent in question is not supporting the child in question and observe whether or not the sex still occurs.

Succumbio, on the flip side of that argument, having pornography as a sexual outlet might offer some reprieve and reduce the urge to have actual sex with actual children. It may very well be that kiddy porn is what's preventing the rate of child molestation from being higher than it already is.

 

[Sucumbio]

I never said a child can consent to sex, just that you haven’t shown me that they cannot (and that I’ve never seen any evidence that they cannot).

You've just used the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, unfortunately.

"...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

Be that as it may, your premise is built upon the assumption that children can consent. The difficulty is that by consent we're not talking about agreement. Obviously a child can say "yeah, okay lets have sex, daddy." But does the child REALLY know what that means? For all the child knows they could be talking about eating an ice cream cone (IN BED! /horrible joke). The child has no basis to conceive of the act in its fullness, nor the necessary experience to understand the ramifications of it. Even if you painstakingly explain to the child what sex is, why you have it, and why you'd want to have it with them, and they you, the child may seem to understand and ultimately agree, but deep down, won't understand, and end up feeling betrayed/hurt/scared/wounded/scarred/etc. Why? Cause they're kids, lol. This especially applies to kids who haven't yet reached the age of reason. But it is not exclusive to 4-9 year olds. These types of developmental challenges which prevent a child from properly being able to legally consent don't magically go away just because society wants them too, in other words. Even kids in adolescence have trouble properly dealing with sex and sexual attraction, which is why irresponsible outcomes are so commonplace. Sadly and in the US it is a real problem. But there are many problems with sex in America. It's taboo results in an attitude which demonizes it, making it all the more tempting. The media outlets sexuality in ways that increase the potential for pre-teens/teens to become more obsessed. Even pornography has shifted in ways that promote young-attractiveness (won't source that for you tho ) such as 18 "barely legal" porn featuring shaved genitals, etc. These girls look far underage, and on purpose, because it sells most. Then take the series from Dateline which shows hundreds of "pervs" all caught and arrested because they thought they were going to get to have sex with a child. Why is it so important to de-virginize? That's an ancient question. Why is virginity being lost earlier and earlier? And what result does this have on the sexual trends of humans in general? This is much newer question and has startling ramifications when investigated.

And I disagree that consensual sex will have negative effects on the children, mainly because I disagree that sex has some kind of transcendent meaning, and that anything other than that “purpose” is unhealthy.
Almost 100% of female children will not consent to sex, so why not just throw them out of our discussion?

You say it yourself, almost 100% won't consent. This is proof of my position. And it's not because they're choosing not to (because it's an ingenuous choice to begin with), but because they cannot consent in the legal sense of the word. They're not physically or mentally developed enough to do so.

But you want to ignore that statistic? Okay...

Can you tell me how a prepubescent boy will be harmed having consensual sex?

Yes. In fact both girls and boys are physically harmed by engaging in actual intercourse.

You seem to have no way of distinguishing between pedophiles and child molesters, and your definition of child molester is by far the broadest I’ve ever seen. In fact, you seem to think that every pedophile who even thinks about a child is automatically a child molester (and I can guarantee that every single human thinks about what they are attracted to). For you, does pedophile = child molester?
And did you just make this entire paragraph up? It is completely fabricated? Can you show me any evidence that anything you just said is factual? I, for one, completely disagree with it.

Okay, I admit I didn't source my previous post. I'd figured it should go without saying... in America we learn this stuff from an early age in Sex Ed class, on TV, from our doctors. But this is debate, so I've obliged. This post has plenty of links. You can subsequently follow through these links to find even more links related to the subject matter of kids and sex. But in all of it you'll find a common theme. Kids shouldn't have sex. It's unhealthy in the extreme; mentally, emotionally, neurologically, physically. And so therefore adults should not try to coax or cajole kids into having sex. This is why it's called child sexual abuse.

As for my distinguishing between pedophile and child molester... there's really only one difference for me. A child molester is a pedophile, and has actually done the molesting. A pedophile could be a potential child molester. Potential. That's the only difference imho. There's the act, then there's possibility of the act. From the mind of a pedophile you're speaking about the fantasy of lusting after children as if they were adults. Instead of fantasizing about other adults, they fantasize about kids. This automatically entails certain truths. 1.) The object of their fantasy is a human who is not developed enough to have sex (causes harm) 2.) The act itself therefore results in a manipulation of an undeveloped human to engage in a harmful act. This isn't a bold statement of ethics or anything transcendental. It's just pure logic at this point.

Succumbio, on the flip side of that argument, having pornography as a sexual outlet might offer some reprieve and reduce the urge to have actual sex with actual children. It may very well be that kiddy porn is what's preventing the rate of child molestation from being higher than it already is.

I'll grant you this, actually because I was equally as brazen. In the extreme it could go either way. I would be hard pressed to find actual statistics because most pedophiles are such in secret. Most sexual fantasy remains fantasy, and porn is normally an outlet to help the fantasy seem more real without it being full-on real. But then if this is the case, why is child prostitution so rampant? Why all those normal looking everyday-type dudes on To Catch A Predator? School teachers, doctors, lawyers, bankers, "respectable" people, all hoping to get laid with a child. Why? It's a circular dilemma which I've alluded to w/my response to Cheap Peach, but it's certainly a conundrum, and one in which I'd be hesitant to risk escalation by perpetuating the industry.

By all intents and purposes most people are revolted at the thought of engaging in sex with a kid. Most parents especially feel this way, as they automatically envision their own child being hurt in this fashion. But then again, there are plenty of people who would be revolted by humans having sex with animals. This type of porn while not explicitly illegal is not nearly as problematic for law enforcement as child porn. So is it really just arbitrary decisions? Or is it okay to have sex with animals because adults can choose to do that to an animal, and an animal's rights are less than that of a child? Animal cruelty laws say otherwise, and you will certainly go to jail if you're caught banging a pig in your back yard. But will you go to jail for 15 years, spend your life as a registered sex offender, being potentially chemically castrated? No.

 

[ballin4life]

That's not an argument from ignorance. He clearly states "I never said a child can consent to sex".

Argument from ignorance would be "A child can definitely consent because you haven't shown otherwise"