softwareNerd Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Fair point about the analogy. Tell me this, can parents show a kid a sex-ed video if they wish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Can a child legally consent to watching people drive cars? How is that any different. It just sex...however much ewwww...it's a purely ideological issue. Added: How about a sex-ed video? "It's just sex." Hmmm. Careful with that "just" there. Good question about the video. Which is why I mentioned earlier the need for an objective definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 SN, I've thought about this issue a bit more and this is what i think. Watching sex is a very unique experience simply because of the nature of sex. Someone can have some sort of experience of sex just through the mind, which is why there is masturbation, phone sex, etc. When you watch people in the act of sex, it is very difficult not to take part in some way, through your mind. It takes quite some discipline to keep your body from absolutely not responding to what you are seeing. (And it might require even more discipline to keep from watching it.) Obviously, a child will find that his own mind and body is responding in a sexual way to the situation, and he has no experience to know what to do about this (self-control or turning away) because it's so over-powering. I understand why Inspector would feel it's disgusting to have someone watch his/her own parents doing it because this means one will be "forced" to virtually have sex with at least one of the parents, through the mind. This difference alone, i think, is what makes it wrong, morally and legally. The child is actually being made to take part in sex - or at the very least, "sexual activity" - through these actions. After all, a large part of sex is psychological. A sex ed video can also be wrong for the child. The simple test is if it is explicit enough to cause the mind (and body - due to the integration of the two) to sexually respond to the way the scenes are presented, without conscious effort from the audience; the word is "arouse", i believe. If it's properly presented, it will have no such effect on anyone watching, just like a movie sex scene that is very incidental to the story (as opposed to a sex scene that is quite essential to the whole story or type of movie). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 You asked for a definition of porn, but even if we could define it, it would not follow that porn that may not be shown to another adult without their consent should also use the same legal definition of porn that should not be shown to kids without their consent. Parents can ask their kids to do a whole lot of things, and exposure porn would -- in my estimation -- never rise to a legal standard of abuse on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Tell me this, can parents show a kid a sex-ed video if they wish? My first inclination is "yes," but I have to give it more thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 SN, What do you think about blackdiamond's theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMetaphysical Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I know I'm going to sound like a sexual deviant (I probably already am to some) but... Why is sexual activity harmful to children? I mean, is it the sexual activity that is harmful when a child is molested or raped or is it the coercion and athority abuse of the molester that is harmful? I had a number of uncoerced sexual experiences before I was 18 that don't seem to have done any psychological harm, so what is it about sex that makes it ''different'' and ''harmful'' to a child's understanding about their own body and life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Why is sexual activity harmful to children? They are incapable of consenting to it, is the short answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMetaphysical Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) So the sexual activity I engaged in as a child, I did so while incapable of consenting to it, even though it involved another child? Are there things that children are capable of consenting to? Edited March 21, 2007 by IAmMetaphysical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I think i can also bet 2 million Zimbabwean dollars that this is a very Jerry Springer kind of couple:Your 2 cent's worth, eh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrassDragon Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) So the sexual activity I engaged in as a child, I did so while incapable of consenting to it, even though it involved another child? Are there things that children are capable of consenting to? I think it makes sense to consider children capable of consenting to anything, but to hold adults responsible for their actions in all cases, regardless of the child's consent. In other words, whether or not a child can or does consent is a moot point: that doesn't excuse your action if you mistreat a child. A child can't give up his right not to be mistreated, and only in that sense can he not "consent." The same standard applies to adults, we just don't prosecute in many cases involving "consenting" adults, because there's no reason for society to be moralizing in that way. Inspector - I'd like to hear your long answer. blackdiamond - you've established that a child watching sex is taking part in sex in some vicarious way. But you'd have to show that that is harmful to the child to prove that having sex in front of children is immoral. Edited March 21, 2007 by BrassDragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 So the sexual activity I engaged in as a child, I did so while incapable of consenting to it, even though it involved another child? Yes. Neither of you were capable of consenting to it. However, that works both ways: so neither of you was acting as a predator on the other, either. Are there things that children are capable of consenting to? Hard to say; perhaps not, at least not in an adult sense. But for mundane activities, such as whether they want grape or strawberry jelly on their sandwich, it doesn't really matter. The idea is that the guardian makes these decisions for them, ultimately. That is the role of a guardian, to make the decisions the child cannot. Inspector - I'd like to hear your long answer. Slightly longer - children cannot comprehend or consent to sex. We have a word for non-consensual sex: rape. If blackdiamond is correct and the child is participating in some way, then it would qualify as a form of rape. Do I have to show that that is harmful to a child? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrassDragon Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Slightly longer - children cannot comprehend or consent to sex. We have a word for non-consensual sex: rape. If blackdiamond is correct and the child is participating in some way, then it would qualify as a form of rape. Do I have to show that that is harmful to a child? What you have to show is harmful is vicariously experiencing sex in some way by watching it. You can define rape as broadly or as specifically as you want, but ultimately, the definition of "rape" is irrelevant. The incident in question would generally not be considered rape, because there is no actual sex involved; only some vicarious experience of sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wotan Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Deliberately having sex in front of your kid seems a bit immoral and like an instance of bad parenting to me. But I don't think it's a crime. A lot depends on context. Why did they do it, what way, how is the kid reacting, what is the level of maturity and stability and curiosity of the kid, etc. Overall I think it's best if you 'demonstrate' to your neighbors' kids, and they 'demonstrate' to yours. We all believe in fun and pleasure here, don't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Neither of you were capable of consenting to it. However, that works both ways: so neither of you was acting as a predator on the other, either.Warning: if we replace 'have sex with' with 'stab' in this equation, we get a bad result. Being a minor isn't a get out of jail free card. How do you distinguish rape from assault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Warning: if we replace 'have sex with' with 'stab' in this equation, we get a bad result. Actually, in a way we don't. Suppose a 1-year-old is crawling around and knocks over a vase that hits you on the head. Is that assault? He wasn't capable of understanding what he was doing; of what the consequences of it would be, for him or for others. This is indeed why minors are prosecuted differently than adults. I agree that it is not a get out of jail free card. Of course, there are limits, especially if a kid is old enough. If the law can prove that the minor did indeed understand the reality of what they did, then I would support a full prosecution. It's just that with minors, the burden on proof is on the courts to show that the minor understood their actions. What you have to show is harmful is vicariously experiencing sex in some way by watching it. Not quite. It is already shown that experiencing sex is harmful to minors. What needs to be shown is simply that watching sex is a form of experiencing sex. That's why I said, "if blackdiamond's theory is correct." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Actually, in a way we don't. Suppose a 1-year-old is crawling around and knocks over a vase that hits you on the head. Is that assault? He wasn't capable of understanding what he was doing; of what the consequences of it would be, for him or for others. This is indeed why minors are prosecuted differently than adults.Age wouldn't matter for the vase case, since at any age, it would be an accident. To make things comparable, let's suppose we have 12 year olds -- if you'd argue that a 12 year old can consent, let's pick 10 or whatever you would take to be an obvious age. In case 1, they have sex: A can't consent, and B can't consent, so it is non-consensual, thus rape. But neither can be a predator; so it's a wash. Now replace sex with shooting: the consent / predator parts of the equation should also cancel. So if we are to presume that minors don't satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction in a minor-on-minor consensual sex case (meaning, that they cannot grasp the nature of the act and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions), the same presumption should hold for adult-on-minor sex, minor-on-anybody rape, or minor-on-anybody assault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Age wouldn't matter for the vase case, since at any age, it would be an accident. See, but it's kind of an accident no matter what, if he doesn't know what a vase is, what it will do if tipped, and how that will crack your skull. Now replace sex with shooting: the consent / predator parts of the equation should also cancel. Basically. Assuming that they really don't know what they have done, then yes. They prosecute the parents for that kind of thing, usually, don't they? So if we are to presume that minors don't satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction in a minor-on-minor consensual sex case (meaning, that they cannot grasp the nature of the act and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions), the same presumption should hold for adult-on-minor sex, minor-on-anybody rape, or minor-on-anybody assault. You lost me. Could you rephrase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Basically. Assuming that they really don't know what they have done, then yes.Now back to my get out of jail free point. If by presumption -- the "they don't understand" presumption -- 12 year olds can have sex amongst each other with no consequences, they can murder with no consequences. If there's special evidence of a particular quality that shows that they do know what they're doing, then perhaps they get convicted, but not otherwise. We'd need to consider what that evidence would be. For example, if saying "I'm gonna kill you" is objective evidence that the child understands the act, then equally, the child saying "Let's have sex" or "I agree to have sex with you" is evidence that they understand the act.They prosecute the parents for that kind of thing, usually, don't they?No: if your child murders a teacher, you can't be convicted of murder, because the fact is, you didn't murder anyone. Financial responsibility is separate (if your kid or dog desrtoys a screen door, you aren't arrested but you are responsible for the costs). The point is that this argument about child sex is based on the claim that children cannot consent, more specifically cannot use reasoning to integrate facts and use free will to arrive at a choice of action. Therefore, you cannot ask a child to have sex with you, and have the child understand the request and freely decide what to do, based on a rational analysis of the alternatives. In brief, a child cannot consent to having sex. And any sex act that is non-consensual is rape. If you're with me so far, then it follows that a minor child also cannot do that which is prohibited to adults, namely have sex with another child (since the other child cannot consent). Therefore, a minor who has un-forced sex with another child (kids messing around), or a child who actually assaults / rapes another child, would be guilty of rape, i.e. having non-consensual sex. The only fact that could differentiate the cases is that in the forced-rape case, the child might have used the threat of a beating which would be an additional crime. The way to excape this conclusion is to say that while children cannot consent to having sex, they also cannot be held responsible for their actions. That means that even though it's technically wrong for one child to have sex with another, because children are assumed to be immune from responsibility (other than cleaning up their rooms or doing homework, at any rate they are not legally responsible), the child can't be held responsible for having sex with another child. But that assumption of irresposibility (well, non-responsibility) would be true both in the case where two kids decide to have sex, versus one kid decides to take sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) Now back to my get out of jail free point. If by presumption -- the "they don't understand" presumption -- 12 year olds can have sex amongst each other with no consequences, they can murder with no consequences. Assuming that the age of assumption of understanding of murder is the same as the age of assumption of understanding of sex. Do you think it would be a problem for those to be different? Murder is much simpler to understand than sex. No: if your child murders a teacher, you can't be convicted of murder, because the fact is, you didn't murder anyone. Financial responsibility is separate (if your kid or dog desrtoys a screen door, you aren't arrested but you are responsible for the costs). No, not murder. You could be convicted of some kind of criminal negligence, though, I think. Am I right in thinking that? The way to excape this conclusion is to say that while children cannot consent to having sex, they also cannot be held responsible for their actions. That means that even though it's technically wrong for one child to have sex with another, because children are assumed to be immune from responsibility (other than cleaning up their rooms or doing homework, at any rate they are not legally responsible), the child can't be held responsible for having sex with another child. Yes, that is where I was going. But that assumption of irresposibility (well, non-responsibility) would be true both in the case where two kids decide to have sex, versus one kid decides to take sex. I see what you mean now. But the crime in this case is different: statutory rape versus [whatever the legal term for violent rape is]. If the crime is different, then you could possibly still prosecute, I think. Your thoughts? edit: a better way to put this: The idea is that they don't fully understand what they are consenting to with sex. Not that they don't understand what forcible rape is. The latter is a simpler concept. Thus, still prosecutable. In the same way that they don't understand the concept of the origin of rights and citizenship, so can't vote, but can still be accountable for not violating those rights. Edited March 21, 2007 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMetaphysical Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 There are a great many activities that children engage in in which they don't fully understand its nature, are those activities, e.g. baseball, household chores, harmful to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 There are a great many activities that children engage in in which they don't fully understand its nature, are those activities, e.g. baseball, household chores, harmful to them? ...non-consensual baseball. Yes, that is a problem. The point is that rape is bad and non-consensual sex is rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Now back to my get out of jail free point. If by presumption -- the "they don't understand" presumption -- 12 year olds can have sex amongst each other with no consequences, they can murder with no consequences. If there's special evidence of a particular quality that shows that they do know what they're doing, then perhaps they get convicted, but not otherwise. Well, consequences should be there. I think the way a child should be judged and "convicted" for "murder" should be very different from the way an adult would be judged, and the nature and purpose of the "punishment" (consequence) should also be very different. I think a killer child should be put away for the same reason that we put away a dog that kills a person. The child is put in some kind of jail, not for justice, but simply to keep it away from society until it is established that it is safe to let it out (the dog is just normally killed - or permanently put away - of course). In short, assault or murder or anything should be seen in exactly the same way as sex, for the child. It is not morally liable for any of these actions, in the same way that a dog can not be held morally or legally liable. But this does not protect it from "jail" or at least some kind of rehabilitational institution. This is done to simply protect the lives (property) of other people in society, a legitimate job of government. Just to give a final example, if some creature from Mars dropped on earth and killed a person after some time, we would put it in jail or something, not because we think it is rational, but because we don't want any more trouble. Now back to my get out of jail free point. Go back to jail, your card is invalid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moebius Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Assuming that the age of assumption of understanding of murder is the same as the age of assumption of understanding of sex. Do you think it would be a problem for those to be different? Murder is much simpler to understand than sex. How is murder easier to understand than sex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) How is murder easier to understand than sex? Everyone here agrees that murder is wrong. Threads about sex go on for 13,000 pages of argument. Edited March 21, 2007 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.