Uhhh...yes. Children do not have the mental capability to properly understand sex, and are not in a position to consent. Adults are.
Advertisement
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:29 am
by Chinese Regions » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:30 am
by 1000 Cats » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:31 am
United low territories wrote:1000 Cats wrote:It's really not so much the dominance, so much as the fact that a very young individual is, once again, not psychologically developed enough for a sexual relationship. We as humans look a lot into sex; we are a very social species, and thus sex has developed, not only culturally but biologically, a very strong emotional implication that, one could theorize, is the reason that even in circumstances where the prepubescent child said "OK", and may not have been in quite the same situation as a raped person, or one overtly coerced, there are life-long consequences to the individual's psychological well-being.
Still there are plenty of young teens that have sex with others of their age, usually with much less severe consequences. But as an adult, who is used to having sex and displays more dominance over the younger person, it's a lot easier to, either on purpose or accidentally, pressure somone into doing something they will regret. I'm not opposed teenagers or even younger children having sex, I think that's perfectly normal and mostly harmless. An adult with a child is a different matter, for the lack of equality.
Norstal wrote:You are a hatiater: one who radiates hate.
Meryuma wrote:No one is more of a cat person than 1000 Cats!
FST wrote:Any sexual desires which can be satiated within a healthy and consensual way should be freed from shame. Bizarre kinks and fetishes are acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of as long as they are acted out in a context where everyone consents and no one is hurt.
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:32 am
by Chinese Regions » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:32 am
The Chaos Heart wrote:Chinese Regions wrote:And why is that bad since according to you, that does not exist?
Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.
My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.
I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.
by 1000 Cats » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:33 am
The Chaos Heart wrote:Chinese Regions wrote:And why is that bad since according to you, that does not exist?
Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.
My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.
I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.
Norstal wrote:You are a hatiater: one who radiates hate.
Meryuma wrote:No one is more of a cat person than 1000 Cats!
FST wrote:Any sexual desires which can be satiated within a healthy and consensual way should be freed from shame. Bizarre kinks and fetishes are acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of as long as they are acted out in a context where everyone consents and no one is hurt.
by United low territories » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:35 am
1000 Cats wrote:Teens have, however, entered puberty; by the time they are fourteen they tend to be well on their way (depending on the sex and the individual). Young children having sex tends to be quite a different matter, even in the case of a pubescent teen and a prepubescent youth.
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:36 am
1000 Cats wrote:The Chaos Heart wrote:
Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.
My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.
I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.
But the term "wrong" can be objective?
by Zoysia » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:36 am
The Chaos Heart wrote:
I made known my opinions on pedophilia.
I just also have the ability to objectively look at the situation, and realize my opinions are just that; opinions.
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:38 am
Zoysia wrote:The Chaos Heart wrote:
I made known my opinions on pedophilia.
I just also have the ability to objectively look at the situation, and realize my opinions are just that; opinions.
I also like to look at things objectively and would like to further the discussion on good and bad, if you don't mind. (I'm having trouble falling asleep and I find this interesting.) What is good itself in essence does not change, for we define things as good when it increase happiness, pleasure, ect. and bad is the absence of good. Rather the thing that changes or is considered opinion would be ethics and morals which is what we "consider" to be good or bad. Ethics and morals are what changes and are opinion rather than good and bad itself. If we were to put it in the context of the discussion. It is more of a problem of labeling of the words.
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:41 am
by Zoysia » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:42 am
Then let us redefine good, as it's essence do not change but rather the thing that changes is what we consider to be good. That change is the ethics or morals of the times, region, culture, ect.The Chaos Heart wrote:Zoysia wrote:I also like to look at things objectively and would like to further the discussion on good and bad, if you don't mind. (I'm having trouble falling asleep and I find this interesting.) What is good itself in essence does not change, for we define things as good when it increase happiness, pleasure, ect. and bad is the absence of good. Rather the thing that changes or is considered opinion would be ethics and morals which is what we "consider" to be good or bad. Ethics and morals are what changes and are opinion rather than good and bad itself. If we were to put it in the context of the discussion. It is more of a problem of labeling of the words.
Some would argue that that it is not good to feel pleasure and happiness. The Catholic church of the Middle Ages was a lot like this actually.
by Vecherd » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:43 am
by Zeth Rekia » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:43 am
United low territories wrote:Ah, get a topic.
by Zoysia » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:43 am
It's almost 6am here, but I do understand if you drop off. But thank you for replying so far.The Chaos Heart wrote:You also caught me at a bad time, as I was just about to go to bed. I'll stay up for a bit, but if I drop off suddenly, that's why. It's almost 4 in the morning here.
by 1000 Cats » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:44 am
The Chaos Heart wrote:1000 Cats wrote:But the term "wrong" can be objective?
No. It can't. Nothing in my post implied that. My opinion that sex with a child is wrong is, as I said, opinion. Not objective.
Basically, what I'm saying is, the idea that sex with a child is wrong is not true, because it's opinion. But I don't care. I'm still going to hold that and other opinions of mine. Why? because life would be fucking boring as hell otherwise.
Norstal wrote:You are a hatiater: one who radiates hate.
Meryuma wrote:No one is more of a cat person than 1000 Cats!
FST wrote:Any sexual desires which can be satiated within a healthy and consensual way should be freed from shame. Bizarre kinks and fetishes are acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of as long as they are acted out in a context where everyone consents and no one is hurt.
by Chinese Regions » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:49 am
1000 Cats wrote:The Chaos Heart wrote:
Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.
My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.
I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.
But the term "wrong" can be objective?
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:51 am
Zoysia wrote:Then let us redefine good, as it's essence do not change but rather the thing that changes is what we consider to be good. That change is the ethics or morals of the times, region, culture, ect.The Chaos Heart wrote:
Some would argue that that it is not good to feel pleasure and happiness. The Catholic church of the Middle Ages was a lot like this actually.
by DaWoad » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:51 am
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:52 am
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:54 am
1000 Cats wrote:The Chaos Heart wrote:
No. It can't. Nothing in my post implied that. My opinion that sex with a child is wrong is, as I said, opinion. Not objective.
Basically, what I'm saying is, the idea that sex with a child is wrong is not true, because it's opinion. But I don't care. I'm still going to hold that and other opinions of mine. Why? because life would be fucking boring as hell otherwise.
Is it also your opinion that an individual should be prosecuted due to an opinion that he has done wrong?
by 1000 Cats » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:54 am
The Chaos Heart wrote:Zoysia wrote: Then let us redefine good, as it's essence do not change but rather the thing that changes is what we consider to be good. That change is the ethics or morals of the times, region, culture, ect.
But by redefining good, we are essentially changing we consider good.
This may not be the most accurate example, but i'll give this a whirl. A murder. the person who was murdered, a d obviously their friends and family, feel this act was bad. It did not bring them pleasure, but pain. the murderer, however, felt great pleasure.
Given your definitions, the act should be both good and bad. But this simply is not rational. Yeah, it's true for the individual yada yada. But "true for an individual" is code for opinion.
Since the situation cannot be both good and bad, and both sides are subjugating it to their opinion of good and bad, then the action becomes inherently void of these things. It becomes neither good nor bad. It is simply an action that occurred at some point in time.
Now, you'll say "but it's only bad because they experienced pain, and it's only good because they experienced pleasure, so this must prove my point". But I disagree. Pleasure was brought to the murderer. If pleasure automatically = good, why then is the murder not good in the eyes of the victims family and friends?
This is because it's not good in their eyes. In this situation, the pleasure was bad. Wich shows that good and bad don't even have set ideologies, and merely change on the whim of a person, when they don't like something or like something. But this makes it opinion, not fact. Which means it's not truth.
Norstal wrote:You are a hatiater: one who radiates hate.
Meryuma wrote:No one is more of a cat person than 1000 Cats!
FST wrote:Any sexual desires which can be satiated within a healthy and consensual way should be freed from shame. Bizarre kinks and fetishes are acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of as long as they are acted out in a context where everyone consents and no one is hurt.
by DaWoad » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:57 am
1000 Cats wrote:The Chaos Heart wrote:
But by redefining good, we are essentially changing we consider good.
This may not be the most accurate example, but i'll give this a whirl. A murder. the person who was murdered, a d obviously their friends and family, feel this act was bad. It did not bring them pleasure, but pain. the murderer, however, felt great pleasure.
Given your definitions, the act should be both good and bad. But this simply is not rational. Yeah, it's true for the individual yada yada. But "true for an individual" is code for opinion.
Since the situation cannot be both good and bad, and both sides are subjugating it to their opinion of good and bad, then the action becomes inherently void of these things. It becomes neither good nor bad. It is simply an action that occurred at some point in time.
Now, you'll say "but it's only bad because they experienced pain, and it's only good because they experienced pleasure, so this must prove my point". But I disagree. Pleasure was brought to the murderer. If pleasure automatically = good, why then is the murder not good in the eyes of the victims family and friends?
This is because it's not good in their eyes. In this situation, the pleasure was bad. Wich shows that good and bad don't even have set ideologies, and merely change on the whim of a person, when they don't like something or like something. But this makes it opinion, not fact. Which means it's not truth.
If we summed all the 'good' and the 'bad', would that not form an objective appraisal? In this case, the murderer is the only one who feels good; however, the victim, the victim's family, and even the whole community, feels bad, making the murder a bad thing.
by The Chaos Heart » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:59 am
1000 Cats wrote:If we summed all the 'good' and the 'bad', would that not form an objective appraisal? In this case, the murderer is the only one who feels good; however, the victim, the victim's family, and even the whole community, feels bad, making the murder a bad thing.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A m e n r i a, Autumn Wind, Czechostan, Dimetrodon Empire, Floppa Lovers, Ifreann, Kager South, Lysset, Mr TM, Pale Dawn, Philjia, Platypus Bureaucracy, Port Carverton, Tarsonis, The Holy Therns, The Huskar Social Union, Tungstan, Turenia
Advertisement