Dutchies - pervs

[Wij]

People may accuse you of a lot of things, Tom, but one thing nobody could ever accuse you of is getting the point.

Edit - this seems to be basically the old "is there an ultimate, objective morality?" thing, and it seems unlikely that it'll be finally resolved by a forum full of internet gamers. Someone go grab a Big Book of First Year Philosophy, please.

Meta-ethics was a speciality of mine

I'm now old and don't remember most of it though


Anyway. If most people agree that it's wrong, even when they've had it explained enough to fully understand the implications and get rid of their bias (largely impossible I know but that's why we still have ethical debates now and it's not all done and dusted), then it just is wrong. Ethics is a human invention.

/edit: Oh and the difference between 15 and 364 days and 16 is not a real philosophical issue. Don't fall into the trap of the discontinuous mind as Dawkins calls it. 16 is arbitrary and noone is arguing that it isn't, but an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere or we'd be having baby-rape or no sex at all. 16 seems a good age to most people except Gary Glitter.

 

[Tom]

I would be shocked and tell her not to, because it would feel wrong. I think there's no rational ground for prohibiting it, but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it.

So by telling her not to, you're being irrational?

Or perhaps you think its because she is emotionally unable to cope with a sexual relationship at that age, just like most children. I think thats quite rational myself.

I know its an emotive argument and I'm not accusing anybody of anything, and I do get the point. I just think the point is wrong.

 

[nath]

Ethics is a human invention.

Surely it's partly genetics/instinct. We're a social animal and as such it's generally in our best interest to keep each other alive/healthy.

 

[Wij]

Surely it's partly genetics/instinct. We're a social animal and as such it's generally in our best interest to keep each other alive/healthy.

Not really the point.

When I'm less pissed I'll happily engage in a long debate

 

[noblok]

Or perhaps you think its because she is emotionally unable to cope with a sexual relationship at that age, just like most children. I think thats quite rational myself.

I don't really get what you mean with 'being emotionally unable to cope with it', but I suppose it means something along the lines of psycholgical harm, as in a trauma?

If that's the correct interpretation then no, that wouldn't be the reason. Even if it caused no harm I wouldn't be comfortable with it. In fact, if she went without me knowing and came back "Daddy, I had a great time!" I would feel even more uncomfortable.

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't really get what you mean with 'being emotionally unable to cope with it', but I suppose it means something along the lines of psycholgical harm, as in a trauma?

If that's the correct interpretation then no, that wouldn't be the reason. Even if it caused no harm I wouldn't be comfortable with it. In fact, if she went without me knowing and came back "Daddy, I had a great time!" I would feel even more uncomfortable.

Its a combination of factors; the age thing is partly because we have a different emotional investment in our children compared to as recently as 75 years ago. As infant mortality has decreased, and living standards have gone up, we have fewer children, who we look after for longer, and expect to survive. At a genetic level we're putting more of our 'eggs in one basket' so to speak, and even if we're not conciously aware of it, it increases the tendency to overprotect and spoil (qv. "The Little Emperor" syndrome in China). This has also increased the tendency to try to infantalise children for as long as possible; but at a time when children are 'growing up' as never before because of modern media (and I don't mean 'growing up' in the previously accepted, 'taking on adult responsibilities' way). As a side issue we also have a different economic relationship with our children, which is why we no longer marry off daughters and expect dowries.

So you have a combination of sexually active but infantalised children, coupled with over-protective parents, and often these parents are themselves the second generation of children for whom this is the case, and of course a media that's part of the same framework, and is not only the cause of many of the early sexual development issues but also of the hysteria about protecting children (this is one area where the media most definitely has its cake and eats it).

Then you have an additional factor, that everyone here has avoided. Most of the time adult/child relationships are abusive simply because the vast majority of them occur within the family or without the child's consent; something these Dutch wierdos convieniently ignore. Small children don't normally gravitate towards sexual encounters with much older adults, unless they're pressured by said adults. If children initiate sex it tends to be with each other, and within a fairly narrow age range. This is why the courts set arbitrary age limits,simply because it gives them another stick to wield against this kind of abuse. After all, you very, very rarely hear of a 17 year old being prosecuted because he shagged a 15 year old; the legal system has quite a lot of common sense checks and balances built into it.

 

[noblok]

On the factors as to why we consider incest wrong: it seems plausible, but it doesn't seem like a rational decision. To me it appears as if it's determined by a lot of things (emotional investment, media, darwinism), but not reason .

On the additional factors: the NVD hasn't ignored those. Abusive sex is still punishable and when there's a 'dependency relation' (incest, student-teacher, ...), they want a minimum age of 16.

 

[noblok]

On the factors as to why we consider incest wrong

Doh, I got confused there, I meant paedophilia of course .

 

[DaGaffer]

On the factors as to why we consider incest wrong: it seems plausible, but it doesn't seem like a rational decision. To me it appears as if it's determined by a lot of things (emotional investment, media, darwinism), but not reason .

Just because you don't see all those factors as 'reason' doesn't mean they're not. Our attitudes towards children aren't irrational if you look at the underlying causes.

On the additional factors: the NVD hasn't ignored those. Abusive sex is still punishable and when there's a 'dependency relation' (incest, student-teacher, ...), they want a minimum age of 16.

Well you see that's where it breaks down; as children are not considered legally responsible for very much, there will always be a 'dependency relation' between any adult and any child, becuase only one of them is legally responsible for their actions. So unless you're going to say a 12 year old is legally an 'adult' (with an adult's responsibilities) then such relationships will always be abusive. And personally, I'm not even sure 16 year olds are ready for many adult responsibilities, never mind little kids. Of course in an ideal world, we would have some accurate measure of developmental progress, so that maturity could be judged on an individual basis (and I don't just mean sex, I mean everything), but that's impossible, so we're left with the law of averages.

 

[Lazarus]

16 seems a good age to most people except Gary Glitter.

/offtrack
16 may seem a good age to most people - apart from travel agents. just had to shell out ADULT place on my holiday for my daughter who is 12.5 at the time of travel.

So, Ill be ordering her a nice glass of wine on the plane and she what shit breaks loose

 

[noblok]

Just because you don't see all those factors as 'reason' doesn't mean they're not. Our attitudes towards children aren't irrational if you look at the underlying causes.

Hmm, I probably misunderstood you then. The way I understood it, the reason as to why we consider paedophilia as wrong is mainly culturally determined and not the result of rational reasoning. I'm not saying these cultural factors aren't reasons though. It's just that the way I interpreted your post it wasn't the result of a rational thought process.

The NVD considers 16 as 'adult', but at 12 kids should have the right to vote and engage in sexual relationships (maybe more, but I only quickly scanned their program).

 

[DaGaffer]

Hmm, I probably misunderstood you then. The way I understood it, the reason as to why we consider paedophilia as wrong is mainly culturally determined and not the result of rational reasoning. I'm not saying these cultural factors aren't reasons though. It's just that the way I interpreted your post it wasn't the result of a rational thought process.

I think you're confusing 'rational' with 'concious'. I don't think we think through the details of our attitudes towards kids, but they are generally appropriate to the current circumstances and hence mainly rational (not completely, one only has to look at a 'baby on board' sign to see the irrational side of parental behaviour).

The NVD considers 16 as 'adult', but at 12 kids should have the right to vote and engage in sexual relationships (maybe more, but I only quickly scanned their program).

Anyone who thinks the average 12 year old should have the right to vote is a fucking moron. Or 12.

 

[noblok]

I think you're confusing 'rational' with 'concious'. I don't think we think through the details of our attitudes towards kids, but they are generally appropriate to the current circumstances and hence mainly rational (not completely, one only has to look at a 'baby on board' sign to see the irrational side of parental behaviour).

Hmm, that's an interesting idea. Rationality without consciousness... I don't know if i'm capable of thinking that, but it's interesting nonetheless. I suppose that this means that the fewer kids we have, the more we will protect them is a rational choice in the light of 'the species must live on'?

Anyone who thinks the average 12 year old should have the right to vote is a fucking moron. Or 12.

That's more or less what I thought when I read that .

 

[throdgrain]

Ive often wondered about the Baby on Board stickers. Its only recently I was told they are for firemen and the like in case of an accident, in case they overlook said baby in a squashed up car.

 

[Earl]

Of all the things to spark debate...

 

[DaGaffer]

Ive often wondered about the Baby on Board stickers. Its only recently I was told they are for firemen and the like in case of an accident, in case they overlook said baby in a squashed up car.

Yeah. Of course it is. Cognitive dissonance if I ever heard it.

 

[Sar]

I'll tell you why sex with kids (even for other kids) is wrong.

Because it can (naturally, the man made device of contraception aside) result in the production of another life, which children are not able, physically or mentally, to cope with.

If they aren't able to handle the consequences (through no fault of their own - they're just too immature by necessity), then why should they be able to handle the actions that give rise to said consequences?

Sex is an adult activity, primarily for psychological reasons, but also because that's how we're DESIGNED TO BE - Sexual maturity anyone? Puberty?

How many people do we all know who were abused as kids and have been psychologically fucked up in later life because of it?

I happen to know a couple of people IRL who were, and trust me, they were in no way or form able, at the age they were abused at, to handle the situation. Even now, 30 years later, they still have trouble assimilating their experience into their everyday life and can result in some terrible episodes of depression and unearthing of repressed emotions.

So how anyone can "condone" paedophilia is beyond me.

End of story.

 

[noblok]

Because it can (naturally, the man made device of contraception aside) result in the production of another life, which children are not able, physically or mentally, to cope with.

But there is such a thing as contraception, so if they take care it's all ok? Also: a sexual relationship doesn't necessarily result in the possibility of having a kid. They can have a gay/lesbian relation, anal penetration, just touching and kissing, etc. This kind of relationship is still wrong in my opinion.

Sex is an adult activity, primarily for psychological reasons, but also because that's how we're DESIGNED TO BE - Sexual maturity anyone? Puberty?

Why would that stop us? Except for religious/symbolic motives, I don't see why this design should play a role as long as it doesn't physically prevent it (without harm being done).

How many people do we all know who were abused as kids and have been psychologically fucked up in later life because of it?

I happen to know a couple of people IRL who were, and trust me, they were in no way or form able, at the age they were abused at, to handle the situation.

Even if there is no abuse involved it would still be wrong. If a kid agrees and is not mentally scarred by it, I still wouldn't think it's right. Unless that last sentence means that children just can't be able to cope with it; that kids who have sexual contact too early will always be scarred, even if they agreed?

Question for DaGaffer: was my latest interpretation of your post correct or am I still not getting your point?

 

[Sar]

This kind of relationship is still wrong in my opinion.

So why argue? If we're agreeing it's wrong?

Homosexuality/lesbianism is an entire point aside from the thrust of this argument. The majority of people end up following their natural instincts which is to be attracted to the opposite sex. Otherwise the human race would never have survived.

Why would that stop us? Except for religious/symbolic motives, I don't see why this design should play a role as long as it doesn't physically prevent it (without harm being done).

But that's precisely my entire point - harm IS being done!

Even if there is no abuse involved it would still be wrong. If a kid agrees and is not mentally scarred by it, I still wouldn't think it's right. Unless that last sentence means that children just can't be able to cope with it; that kids who have sexual contact too early will always be scarred, even if they agreed?

Exactly. Children don't have the emotional maturity to give consent. This is why we have seemingly arbitrary laws dictating at what age people can lawfully begin to have sex.

Children don't have the maturity to think about the consequences of their actions - try raising a child, it quickly becomes blatantly obvious (Why can't I put my hand in the fire? BUT WHY? (x10000)), so there's no way they'd be emotionally mature enough to consider the possible ramifications of a sexual relationship.

Consent is a moot point either way.

 

[noblok]

So why argue? If we're agreeing it's wrong?

Because we don't agree on the reasons as to why it's wrong .

Homosexuality/lesbianism is an entire point aside from the thrust of this argument. The majority of people end up following their natural instincts which is to be attracted to the opposite sex. Otherwise the human race would never have survived.

It was but an example to show that it's not the possibility of having children at too young an age which makes us (me) think it's worng.

But that's precisely my entire point - harm IS being done!
[...]Children don't have the emotional maturity to give consent.

Hmm, but even if in practice it always causes harm, how about a thought experiment? Imagine: a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl have a sexual encounter. Both consent and at the time the girl doesn't mind it. There are no physical consequences. Afterwards the man gives her some kind of drug which makes her completely forget about the encounter, so it will not bother her in later life. Even in this (impossible) situation I would say paedophilia is wrong.


I can agree with the following though: legally it's probably based on rational reasons, because in the majority of the cases (always) the rational reasons will play a role. Morally however there are different factors which play a role as well, as even in exceptional cases where the rational reasons can't be applied I still consider it wrong (see the thought experiment). Now I just hope that it isn't just me who has that opinion on the thought experiment .

(Using 'rational' in the meaning I used it earlier, not in the way DaGaffer means it. I find DaGaffer's solution interesting, but I've found a possible problem with the way I've interpreted it before. Probably my interpretation is just wrong though .)

 

[rynnor]

Children don't have the maturity to think about the consequences of their actions - try raising a child, it quickly becomes blatantly obvious (Why can't I put my hand in the fire? BUT WHY? (x10000)), so there's no way they'd be emotionally mature enough to consider the possible ramifications of a sexual relationship.

Consent is a moot point either way.

Yes but the interesting point is that theres no difference morally in someone who is 16 and yet immature enough to not think of the consequences and someone who's under 16 - thats why you can argue that theres no moral basis for the age of consent.

As DaGaffer said the law that defines 16 as the age of consent is just an approximation - really it makes more sense to consider the individuals involved and their respective abilities to consider the consequences/consent - in that case people over 16 would also be covered but the law likes to define clear borders.

 

[throdgrain]

Yeah. Of course it is. Cognitive dissonance if I ever heard it.

Dont come round ere with yer Cognitive dissonace!!!!!!!1