Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 76 of 206 (262079)
11-21-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
11-21-2005 11:57 AM


There are plenty of 10 year old boys who want to be in the Army. Are consent laws regarding the legal age of conscription ridiculous?
We don't allow 10yos in the army because they wouldn't meet the physical criteria for the army. Consent has absolutely zip to do with it.
Interestingly parental consent does, which I might note is what I think is a valid way to create sexual laws involving minors (with a few other provisions as well). With consent of parents children are allowed to join at younger ages than simply what a recruiter can get by getting a child's signature alone.
By the way none of this addresses my point. Your argument can be used equally against gays. You can't stop rape by making sex illegal. All it does is repress one group in order to pretend to provide protection for another.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:57 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2005 5:17 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 85 by Rrhain, posted 11-22-2005 4:43 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 93 by nator, posted 11-22-2005 3:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 206 (262080)
11-21-2005 5:09 PM


fyi
Just to let people know, I will be increasingly busy for the rest of this week. It is possible I won't be able to get to replying until next week. So if I seem to disappear soon, it will just be till next Monday or Tuesday.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 206 (262084)
11-21-2005 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
11-21-2005 5:07 PM


quote:
Interestingly parental consent does, which I might note is what I think is a valid way to create sexual laws involving minors (with a few other provisions as well).
Hmm. That would allow Christian parents to raise their kids as they wish.
Not that this would help. Christians already have the option not to be gay, but that doesn't prevent them from wanting to interfere with other people's lives.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:07 PM Silent H has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 206 (262144)
11-21-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Silent H
11-21-2005 5:00 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Holmes, I don't know how to respond. I admire your courage in one sense, but the comments on babies, well, it just seems way over on the perverse end of things. Not saying you are perverse or would do such things or anything like that, btw.
I understand the reason and rationale, on paper, but it's too much. Do you think that maybe there is an instinctual sense of morality that lets us know some things are just wrong? You'd probably say it's just cultural conditioning though.
Edit to add I see where shraf originated the line of questioning. It just took me aback for a second to read yur post, but reading Shraf's comments puts it more in perspective.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 07:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2005 4:07 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 206 (262146)
11-21-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
11-20-2005 8:51 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Obviously, I would oppose such steps. I am not claiming everyone's moral sense is right, just that nearly everyone has a moral sense that want codified into law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 11-22-2005 8:39 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 81 of 206 (262147)
11-21-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
11-21-2005 4:53 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Holmes, I knew you'd agree with my basic analysis, although we don't agree on whether it is right or not for moral laws to exist.
What's more, so called liberals who pretend to love science and despise religious bigotry have in fact joined with fundies to demand that science conform (that is must be edited) to support sexual mores... as long as it does not effect gays.
So science can be coopted by ideology? Would you be willing to admit this may have occurred in the case of evolution proponents?
Let me add that I think there is some basis biblically, morally, and certainly historically within our founding documents for a more libertarian society. I think, for example, that drugs as bad as they are should be legal, including all prescription drugs without a prescription. We should be able to decide for ourselves how to treat our own bodies and minds, providing we don't endanger people (such as driving intoxicated).
But dealing with kids under puberty, I really think there is rational, scientific reason to state that sex is off-limits, period, under any laws.
Of course, I am not a full-blown libertarian, and have some mixed feelings on moral laws in certain areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by bkelly, posted 11-21-2005 9:27 PM randman has not replied
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2005 5:01 AM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 206 (262176)
11-21-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
11-21-2005 4:26 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
A child or mentally challenged person (MCP) would not be able to assess the risks involved with eating jello, crossing the street, or swimming. Would you define them as being unable to consent to such activities, and those who would involve them in such activity as equal to forcing them to do such things against their will?
Hrm...
You know, during my reply to this, I began to see the spark of merit in your position.
I'm willing to give you this one, for now. Gave me something to think about, anyway. One thing, first:
Yes. But my definition of coercion means that a person has not consented, unless it is the consent to the lesser alternative between two harms forced upon them.
Well, wait, now. You defined "consent" as merely the positive assent to an activity. How is your position consistent with that?
And also, to correct your misappprehension:
Assuming age equals competence for such people is not valid.
I'm on the record as asserting that age does not equal competence, so your criticism here is off-base.
By the way, if I have not mentioned yet, there are cultures that allow children to play with what we would call dangerous tools. Are they unethical to you? They say they are quite ethical and argue that their method builds self-reliance and responsibility. Is this not possible?
I don't know. How many children per year are injured playing with these tools? I guess I have a pretty high standard for what constitutes a tool too dangerous for a child, so what exactly are we talking about, here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:26 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2005 5:34 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 206 (262207)
11-21-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by randman
11-21-2005 7:29 PM


Are all laws based on morals?
randman writes:
Holmes, I knew you'd agree with my basic analysis, although we don't agree on whether it is right or not for moral laws to exist.
Here again is a problem I have noted a few times. What is the definition of moral. (and ethical) The definition of moral is relating to right and wrong. Religious beliefs are not required for standards of morality.
Are there any laws that are not created for the concept of right and wrong?
In order to keep this thread focused, there seems to be a few basic categories of laws. There are laws concerning what you can do, what you cannot do, and laws on how to do things. Laws about accounting and taxes are laws about how to do things. Laws about things you can do would include such things as corporate law (creating corporations), trust law (creating trusts) and things of that nature. In this thread, we are more interested in laws prohibiting specific activities.
To ensure we catagorize properly, this thread has a concentration in laws about sexual activity. These laws all seem to be laws about what you cannot do. That clarified, back to my core question.
It is possible to create a law about sex that is not based on morality? (keep the definition of the word moral in mind)
To answer the question of the OP, I think that religion plays far too much of a role in our laws concerning sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:29 PM randman has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 84 of 206 (262261)
11-22-2005 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
11-21-2005 7:19 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
but the comments on babies, well, it just seems way over on the perverse end of things.
Yeah, schraf likes to play the slippery slope game, moving rapidly to the most extremely not relevant situation, as well as the most graphic visuals. One day I am hoping she will get that it is merely emotional appeal. Till that time I will play her game to some extent.
Do you think that maybe there is an instinctual sense of morality that lets us know some things are just wrong? You'd probably say it's just cultural conditioning though.
There is no such thing as an instinctual sense of morality. Take a look around you, including your own Bible. If it was instinctual there would be no need for moral or legal rules, people would simply do what they felt and not be bothered by what others were doing because they'd be doing the same thing.
I'm not going to say its just cultural conditioning. It is a combination of many many things. I'd say a combination between personal physical predispositions, personal experience (including reassessment through introspection), and cultural conditioning.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:19 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 11-22-2005 3:49 PM Silent H has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 85 of 206 (262264)
11-22-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
11-21-2005 5:07 PM


holmes writes:
quote:
You can't stop rape by making sex illegal. All it does is repress one group in order to pretend to provide protection for another.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Rapists are an oppressed group?
If your point was that there is a difference between sexual activity and sexual assault, perhaps you could have phrased it a little better.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:07 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2005 5:42 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 206 (262267)
11-22-2005 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by randman
11-21-2005 7:29 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
So science can be coopted by ideology? Would you be willing to admit this may have occurred in the case of evolution proponents?
May have? Of course it has occured. There is absolutely no doubt that from time to time, and certainly in groups, evo proponents have made spurious claims and then rallied around that claim like it was truth.
Despite my loathing for what Well's (an ID author) did with his book Icons of Evolution, which when summed up is a pack of lies, he did have points here and there and there is always the relevant warning to continually recheck your science for underlying assumptions.
But let's be clear, this is not tantamount to saying the same thing that is happening regarding sexual research is going on in the evo community. You can watch the debates occuring in evo fields and you can check the data. The field of sexual research is being shut down and the data supressed.
Even as much as ID proponents claim it is being supressed, in fact people are asking for data and it is available everywhere. Too much credit has been given to them at this point given the very meager information they claim to have, and never reveal when asked point blank.
I hope you can see that difference.
You might very well ask yourself if this could have happened with creationism and ID. Obviously I believe it has. And much more so than in evo, where it is more pocketed, rather than part of the structure.
But dealing with kids under puberty, I really think there is rational, scientific reason to state that sex is off-limits, period, under any laws.
There is no rational scientific reason for this. You cannot get any ought or ought not out of science. It can only tell you what is.
I will again point out what IS. Throughout cultures (even now) and throughout history sex with prepubescents has occured and has been accepted, with no apparent ill effects on those societies. Also animals, including our closest relative (or genetically and behaviorally similar if you don't believe in evo, engage in that same behavior and there is no apparent harm.
If you want to get biblical about it, there is no (and I do mean NO) proscription regarding age in the bible whatsoever. You could clearly marry and have sex with girls (obviously not boys) who were not post-pubescent. There is one story in the bible which involves graphic depictions of pedophilic sex, and age was not the question there. Also. IIRC there was a passage of a young girl (12-14) being taken as a wife. As far as general AOC concepts goes, God would be labelled a pedophile and a sexual rapist for having impregnated Mary. Not only was she under age according to many state laws, he also did not ask her consent.
Your concept of age and sex, have nothing to do with your religion. It is cultural and you can trace it backwards to where they surfaced, and then back forward to how they spread.
Intriguingly in some Islamic nations they allow marriage as young as 9 and allow for sex, though there is the restriction that any harm done during sex is punishable. There is also a generally free attitude toward what we would call molestation of children, though to them it is simply kissing and rubbing genital areas out of pride and recognition it pleases the kid.
Kids themselves have sexual desires and engage in sexual acts well before they reach puberty. My own sexual fantasies and desires stretch back to pretty much my farthest memories. I have been able to secure one clear sexual desire (because I recognized a social event where I had the memory from a photo) at age 7. This is consistent with most estimates of sexually identifiable memories. It is routinely used by gays to justify the concept they were born gay (though I doubt that claim). You might ask yourself when you had your first sexual thought or desire. Or maybe your parents about when they first caught you playing with yourself... I mean before any pubescent masturbatory activity.
I don't know how many times I have seen parents having to stop their kids from getting naked or playing with themselves in public areas.
From this you can see that there is no intrinsic bar to it happening, or inherent ill effects from it happening. It was socially acceptable even to your own religion and culture for quite some time (for a guy that likes Washington, you do know he had been shopping around for a wife among 13yos, right?).
And even if there were effects on health, science could not then label it wrong. It is up to us to move from is, to should or should not, or labels such as harmful.
Despite coming from a strong libertarian mindset, I am not arguing that there should be no sexual laws, particularly when it comes to minors. Minors (and anyone under guardianship) are in a different class than full grown adults. They do not have the same set of rights. As such laws created to help preserve any family's views on sexual morality are valid. There should also be leniency regarding evidentiary rules with regard to rape cases, where a minor is involved. Harm could be redefined for the child's advantage in such cases, according to scientific findings regarding harm as connected to child sexual activity.
This both indicts our present system, which is wholly flawed and repressive, yet preserves the protections for any family or child that wants them.
What I am not going to do is claim that in any way this suggestion has anything to do with an objective stance. I view rape and coercion and harm as not healthy and worthy of moral sanction. Of course one does not need to appeal to that for laws, as they involve direct rights violations.
On top of that I would not want a bunch of jerks constantly making moves on my kids, and being able to sneak around my will. My subjective will which should be a right for my family. That is wholly subjective and an institution of a moral judgement within law. Thankfully OUR moral judgement (the parents rather than the community).
As far as I can tell it is the only logical basis for sexual laws regarding age, though clearly it is in effect subjective moral legislation. The key is it keeps jerks' hands off my kids when they want to have sex and I don't mind, as much as when they want to have sex and I do mind, as well as when we all don't agree with sexual activity.
Yes you might have to put up with the idea that adults or other kids will have sex before puberty. As long as harm can be prosecuted, regardless of whether everyone wanted to have sex or not, what difference would it make... to you?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:29 PM randman has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 87 of 206 (262269)
11-22-2005 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 8:42 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
You know, during my reply to this, I began to see the spark of merit in your position.
Well I am not going to gloat about this. I know you are smart and it is just a matter of really working out your system against many different possibilities, and against logical rules... in this case possibilities.
It has taken me quite a while of intensive thought to work out these issues of ethics, and I don't just mean sexual (as should be seen from some of the cases I mentioned in rebuttal). Ethical and moral rules often seem very clear. I've found that almost always means one has simply not found the wilderness it gets muddy in yet.
I hope with your seeing my point in this, our debates can get more focused and progressive. Maybe you'll even find the necessary fix. Its possible there is one.
Well, wait, now. You defined "consent" as merely the positive assent to an activity. How is your position consistent with that?
Its tricky but it is consistent. Coercion is not a system of open choices as I was trying to suggest with the second part of the sentence. Coercion involves forcing another into several choices that are truly not desired by that individual. Thus in a system of open choices there would be no consent at all.
Maybe it would be better understood through an analogy. A guy comes up to you and nonthreateningly asks would you like me to shoot or stab you to death? And you say no and he walks away. If you had said yes that would have been noncoercive and consensual. If a guy walks up to you and says I am going to stab or shoot you, take your pick, whichever you chose was not actually consensual. It is limited or coerced assent.
I'm on the record as asserting that age does not equal competence, so your criticism here is off-base.
I was not saying that was your position. I'm sorry if my writing it as quickly and briefly as possible made it seem that way. That specific quote was part of my introducing a possible side avenue of debate and chopping it off.
You didn't have to answer it and I wasn't taking it that you would have to agree.
That said I must raise the question if you do not actually assert age equals some portion of competence? It does seem that you link age with risk assessment. I am not saying this is unreasonable but it does seem to be something you want within your system.
How many children per year are injured playing with these tools? I guess I have a pretty high standard for what constitutes a tool too dangerous for a child, so what exactly are we talking about, here?
This gets into assessment of harm. And this is where numbers really start getting interesting. To answer your particular question I do not know the specifics for the tools and cultures under discussion.
In one documentary I watched a man was allowing his son to play with an extremely sharp axe. The documentary people were quick to ask about this, and he explained it as I described. They would not have taken a statistic which said a large number of kids got their hands cut as an indication that it was wrong to allow them to play with axes. They would have taken it as a sign there were a lot of kids whose curiosity got the better of their caution, and learned some valuable lessons. Those that died provided valuable lessons for the survivors.
The lesson of course not being not to play with axes, or not let kids play with axes, but to be careful with anything you are using. Telling a kids to stop playing with something teaches them nothing but obedience to authority, which is useless for an individual.
So stats can be looked at different ways. Also, even assuming we agree to use stats as significant for determining if we need to institute protections, it will start having some interesting effects on what we need to protect kids from.
How many kids do you think fall ill or die, simply because they go to school and schools are breeding grounds and excellent vectors for disease?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 88 of 206 (262271)
11-22-2005 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
11-21-2005 5:33 AM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
Why does an arbitrary line, with no distinct value anyway, contain any validity such that you would recommend not crossing it?
Because it’s the law (what ever age is set in the place where you live it is enforced by law, for most that is a good enough reason. If you want more then it is seen by the vast majority of people in that nation as being a thing you simply don’t do. So we have Law and vicious peer pressure (who wants to be labeled a sex offender? I don’t) Yes it moralistic, yes it may be founded on ideas that possibly can’t be scientifically backed, up but when you live in a society there are things you simply don’t do, even if it is within your capacity to do them. Thus a line you should not cross. Science don’t come into it.
the human race is the only critter, on the whole, that doesn’t start mating the instant after puberty(as far as I know).
This is a bit inaccurate. Human critters are sexual from about the get go. Children will engage in masturbation and then exploration with others, IIRC from just a few weeks on up. They may have... I mean they DO have... sexual activity with others well before puberty. They just don't have kids before puberty for rather obvious biological reasons.
If by "on the whole", you meant "the majority" then that would be correct, though as I say a bit inaccurate. Its not like they naturally wouldn't. Its that they are restricted from such activity.
Yes I meant “the Majority” so you are simply picking holes. Yes children do play snuggling games and have a fascination with their gentile area, but we (try) educate them that this is a no-no and something for adults only. The fact that two prepubescent children may start to explore their sexuality way before having functional equipment is not news to anyone. The fact that many Teenagers also indulge before the AOC is also not news. It happens, yes, but we adults try to educate against it, and for the majority we do hold off till post AOC. Is it a biological restriction? No. Is it social and arbitrary? Yes.
Science may throw in studies in regard to the mental health of young people who have been hunted by older predatory adults and thus help set the bar
There are no valid studies which do this, so the second part of your sentence is underlined. It comes from society and changing mindsets.
Sorry I am obviously confusing clinical psychological studies with science. My bad. Sorry. I’m fairly sure there have been studies in to long term mental health in abused children? But even then I said ”may’ and ”help’, so clearly not placing that much importance on science’s part in all of this.
The point of that comment was that science had little to do with this. After all I said that it was primarily driven by society, so why comment as if I was making a bigger deal for science’s part in all this?
We think, on the whole, that our children are simply not ready for all that at the age of puberty. I agree.
But this is contrary to scientific understanding. That you are not comfortable with this idea, or would not want your own kids involved with this is beyond dispute. That would be legitimate. Assertions of "readiness", beyond some simple mechanical issues, are not.
Again where is my assertion that this is all about science? I said “We Think . ” If I was indicating science was driving this then I would have started the line “Scientific studies have shown . ”. Where do I assert such a strong role for science? I’m fairly sure I don’t.
Sure I am uncomfortable with the idea of underage sex (especially when one of the partners isn’t) most of society feels the same. I’m sure you would have deep qualms over permitting your young hypothetical daughter (hypothetically 11 shall we say) to engage in sexual practice simply because you had no scientific reason to stop her? It’s arbitrary, moralistic and socially driven. That and No parent ever really wants to let go. Science had little or nothing to do with it.
Mind you, what scientist would want to publish a report that said under age sex didn’t harm the child? You can see the headlines now; “Perverted Scientist proves pedophilia is OK!!”.
There is a desire and will by society in recent times to make sure such relations end up disastrously, just as it had with gays for years. The fact that they are successful these days despite the incredible odds and legal forces against them, suggests that kids certainly can be ready and more formidable in pursuing their own desires than many believe possible.
So NAMBLA, which promotes relation ships that many would deem wrong, should be left alone to do as it pleases, as there is no real scientific grounds to object to it?
I agree that rape is harmful... someone's rights are intrinsically violated... and so sort of beyond question as needing full legal restrictions. I am having problems with the "punishment" part. Education, treatment, and restriction makes sense to me. How does punishment do anything for anyone?
Sure, the person who uses rape as a weapon also probably needs treatment, but in this case they knew the damage they would cause, and deliberately performed the act with that damage in mind. This is the same as taking a baseball bat to someone. You know the damage you are going to cause, and that damage is the goal. The choice of rape as a weapon is a mental balance issue that does need looking at for the said individual, but the intent to cause damage, mental and or physical is a criminal act and that needs to be punished as much as any other violent crime of hate. Sure there are issues with the justice system in most nations but if someone caused you physical and/or mental trauma would you not want to see them punished?
While on purely biological grounds you could at least explain underage sex between sexually mature willing partners (ie post puberty), the pheromones, the pheromones . the great taboo however is sex with non sexually active partners ( ie below the age of puberty.) This no matter how you dress, it is clear indication that something has gone badly wrong.
Time to recheck your science. Science cannot say what is right or wrong. If it is happening it is happening and you can only say why it is happening. The idea that it is right/wrong or natural/unnatural is entirely moral posturing.
In fact it is almost laughable in that you seem to be saying that science can come up with an explanation for one kind of sex so maybe it has some legitimacy, but this other kind cannot be so it must not? Could it be that science has no explanation for the other because it is considered taboo and so wholly unresearched?
I’m not saying science tells us underage sex is wrong, I was simply saying biology has shown that sexually mature humans give off pheromones to attract sexual partners. This is simple fact. That the AOC puts an arbitrary barrier on when it is deemed permissible to avail yourself of these signals is where a lot of problems occur. Is it right or wrong? That is a matter for morality, the law and society as a whole.
Again I was not intending to indicate science made a moral judgment on sex with prepubescent children, if that’s how it read I apologize. But sociologically it is a huge taboo, would you not agree? Do you not agree that such acts though physically possible, are truly not permissible?
Earlier, and to some extent even today, there is no scientific "explanation" for homosexuality. Why would two people be attracted to sexual partners whose pheromones would not result in proper mating activity? Obviously something is "wrong"... though we should champion re-education over punishment?
In reality, checking back into scientific knowledge, sex with prepubescents is not outside of normal sexual behavior within the animal kingdom. Indeed our closest relative, the Bonobos, have sex with prepubescents as freely as post. Thus there does not appear to be anything "wrong" with this behavior, unless one wants to believe the myth that man was created separately and so could not naturally engage in behavior seen elsewhere.
Is homosexuality “wrong”? No. Abnormal? Yes. But as homosexuality is also in the rest of the animal kingdom it can’t even be argued to be unnatural. We, generally recognize the right of consenting adult partners to do pretty much what they want (within the law) but adults having or attempting sex with those in pre-puberty is simply out of the ball park wrong.
mis-placed desire.
You will perhaps entertain me with an explanation of what science defines as correctly placed desire?
off the top of my head I can’t, but I’m fairly sure I wasn’t claiming that there was a scientific definition.
Heheheh... okay this was a veritable spanking machine. Your smart and I like your writing so its nothig personal.
Ta for the compliment
However, misuse of science particularly in the name of sexual moralism gets me really hot under the collar.
You have made a big mistake, and it is exactly what rand was suggesting. You have projected your own ethnocentric beliefs into scientific knowledge, and are using it to justify legislation of your morals.
I don’t think I did.
I simply said that biology has shown that sexually mature humans emit pheromones and that can explain the attraction to under-age but sexually mature humans in adults. And did so to highlight that while science has shown that post pubescent individuals are physically ready for reproductive sex before the AOC we artificially set the bar after that physical readiness mainly out of moral and sociological grounds.
I also hinted that I was fairly certain that some studies in to long-term sexual abuse in children have been used to prop up the moralistic stance, not that these were the sole and root pillars of my argument. The validity of any presented study is a topic for elsewhere.
All other comments were highlighting the driving role od society and it’s morals in this topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:33 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2005 7:01 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 206 (262272)
11-22-2005 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rrhain
11-22-2005 4:43 AM


You did not just say that, did you? Rapists are an oppressed group?
No, no I didn't say that.
I suppose I could have phrased it better, but your read was way off. Look again...
1) You can't stop rape by making sex illegal.
Thus I am suggesting that the action is making sex illegal, and that it will not have the purported desired effect of stopping rape.
2) All it does is repress one group in order to pretend to provide protection for another.
If the action is making sex illegal, then the people being repressed would be those that want sex but can't because it is illegal. That would not be rapists, especially given what I said in 1. The "pretend to provide protection for" should underline this as I am shifting to talk about the purported desired effect which I indicate is not possible.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rrhain, posted 11-22-2005 4:43 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 90 of 206 (262282)
11-22-2005 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by ohnhai
11-22-2005 5:39 AM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
Because it’s the law
I'm sorry but when does the law mean anything about what people should or should not do? There are unjust laws and morals and bigotry, correct? I notice you didn't answer my points to this affect. Since you reinforced a rather bizarre notion, I will ask it again.
So it is your opinion that gays are wrong, and up until two years ago should not have been having sex at all? Indeed in nations where it still exists as a crime they should not do so? In years past interracial couples should not have fought for their rights and done what they wanted?
So much for rosa parks.
Yes I meant “the Majority” so you are simply picking holes. Yes children do play snuggling games and have a fascination with their gentile area, but we (try) educate them that this is a no-no and something for adults only. The fact that two prepubescent children may start to explore their sexuality way before having functional equipment is not news to anyone. The fact that many Teenagers also indulge before the AOC is also not news. It happens, yes, but we adults try to educate against it, and for the majority we do hold off till post AOC. Is it a biological restriction? No. Is it social and arbitrary? Yes.
My friend that was a pretty big hole and it refutes your position. To say they do these things but we try to educate them differently (to not do it), does not suggest that it is not in our nature to do those things, or that it is in our nature to educate them differently.
The whole point I was making was that we, like all other animals, naturally do engage in such activity. SOME cultures have arisen, and now the majority culture, which finds this natural activity odious and puts a damper on it. Thus you will see less then is our natural inclination.
By the way I love the gloss on what kids do. I was a kid and so was everyone else. Snuggle games and fascination with genitals? It was sexual exploration.
And "way before they have functional equipment"? What function? They all work perfectly to provide pleasure. Is that their function or is their only or proper function sexual reproduction?
Once again your bias is showing.
I’m fairly sure there have been studies in to long term mental health in abused children? But even then I said ”may’ and ”help’, so clearly not placing that much importance on science’s part in all of this.
No valid studies properly connect the damage ("set the bar") at age. People can be damaged in coercive acts at any age. And contrary to public opinion (and the line of indoctrinated clinical psychs) children have been found to recover as well as adults.
I was imply removing the possibility of something that in fact is not there.
Mind you, what scientist would want to publish a report that said under age sex didn’t harm the child? You can see the headlines now; “Perverted Scientist proves pedophilia is OK!!”.
This has already been done and your prediction is correct (I have a thread on it). That is why both APAs have now gone one record that science regarding sexual behavior must correspond to sexual mores and common laws, supporting them at all times. Thus ending legitimate science on these things within their domain, and for most of the scientific community.
I am sorry for emphasizing science, but I thought you were suggesting some legitimacy to what we "think". Most people dislike gays and hope their kids do not become gay and indeed do not want progay education in school as they believe it will lead to their kids becoming gay.
Should we run with what people "think" in this regard, or do we base it on knowledge?
So NAMBLA, which promotes relation ships that many would deem wrong, should be left alone to do as it pleases, as there is no real scientific grounds to object to it?
It depends on what you mean. Left alone to be an organization fighting for their rights? Hell yeah. That every member should be allowed free access to kids at all times? Hell no.
I believe it is the rights of parents to have control over sexual issues regarding their children. Blanket laws based on age do not do this at all. I also believe children should have some tools of protection and control for their own sexuality. Blanket laws based on age do not do this.
There are options beyond blanket aoc laws.
Sure there are issues with the justice system in most nations but if someone caused you physical and/or mental trauma would you not want to see them punished?
Yeah I would but the govt should be above petty revenge feelings. I am for the death penalty, but it is not for punishment.
If physical violence can be shown to deter an act from recurring then okay. But I have yet to see any evidence that it helps anyone rehabilitate for really violent criminals.
But this is another topic altogether. I was simply pointing out I'd have an issue with punishment as a goal of govt action.
I was simply saying biology has shown that sexually mature humans give off pheromones to attract sexual partners. This is simple fact.
Uhhh, but they do more than give off pheromones to attract sexual partners. What goes into sexual attraction? That was the point I was driving at.
But sociologically it is a huge taboo, would you not agree? Do you not agree that such acts though physically possible, are truly not permissible?
No I would not agree. Sociologically it all depends on the culture, and it certainly can be and in some cases still is permissable.
It is true that a sexual hysteria is sweeping the globe, much as witch and communist hysteria swept over it in the past. Does that somehow justify something?
Technically homosexuality used to be a much greater taboo than child sexuality and still is in many nations. In some states which primarily support antigay legislation there are marriage laws which allow sex for those as low as 13.
Obviously I can acknowledge what is a popular trend, but what am I supposed to get out of that, other than what it has meant at other times?
Rand's thread asks if sexual prohibitions mix religion (or morals) with the law. You are doing a good job supporting that theory, and indeed it would appear to be building a position that supports antigay legislation as much as anything else.
But as homosexuality is also in the rest of the animal kingdom it can’t even be argued to be unnatural. We, generally recognize the right of consenting adult partners to do pretty much what they want (within the law) but adults having or attempting sex with those in pre-puberty is simply out of the ball park wrong.
First of all, as I have pointed out, it happens in nature so as you suggest with homosexuality it cannot be called unnatural.
Second, the rest of your argument is a nonsequitor. Who is "we" and why does what you do or say hold any weight on anything. "We" believe homosexuality is wrong despite its naturalness. Is "we" right.
You say it is out of the ball park. What does that even mean? Why is sex different from any other behavior and adult might engage in with a child?
I don’t think I did.
Okay maybe I misread your post to some degree. It appeared that while you were suggesting social sources for things like morals and laws, you were moving on to suggest that in some instances there were objective reasons behind some of them.
Indeed I do not understand your mentioning the pheromone issue in relation to underage people, separating pre and post pubescent focuses of sexuality, outside of such a context.
Your attempt to suggest a difference here between homosexuality and child sex (out of the ball park, wrong?) tends to underline this impression I am getting.
By the way, what is misplaced desire? You say you were not trying to get at an objective definition, but what is it? You used the term.
And I'd like to end on a point of irony. You say that adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescents is taboo. Yet ritual mutilation of prepubescent genitalia for the pleasure of parents or society is not, It is quite common. Intriguingly the society where this is most common is the one where sexual activity is most taboo, yet where mutilation is more taboo such sexual activity is less taboo. Hmmmm.
As a bonus irony point, circumcision used to involve an individual sucking on the child's penis... no joke.... to help soothe and disinfect (with a mouthful of wine). While the US is still just fine with the mutilation, my guess would be that other portion would result in prison time.
Morals against sex are generally about antipleasure, specifically someone getting a pleasure you do not like, than about other effects like harm and pain.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ohnhai, posted 11-22-2005 5:39 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024