Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Child sexuality

Rate this topic


John Kintaro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are you complaining about the specific number 18 (California, Tennessee etc) vs. 16 (Ohio, Montana etc), or are you complaining that the law is stated objectively and not subjectively?

There is nothing subjective about making age of consent relative to personal factors, provided those personal factors are OBJECTIVE, such as whether or not a person HAS developed maturity. The test I'd give would be based chiefly on ability to live in reality. If someone can't live on their own, they're not ready for sex since they don't have an adult level of maturity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is nothing subjective about making age of consent relative to personal factors, provided those personal factors are OBJECTIVE, such as whether or not a person HAS developed maturity. The test I'd give would be based chiefly on ability to live in reality. If someone can't live on their own, they're not ready for sex since they don't have an adult level of maturity.

How do you define "living on their own" or "maturity"? Without defining those terms first your test very well could be subjective. An 8 year old with a 10 million dollar trust fund can conceivably live on his own. If you're talking about making their own money, that would mean the same kid at age 25 and has never had to work shouldn't be allowed to have sex either. Does picking food out of garbage cans count as living in reality? It just seems like an arbitrary test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you provide solid, objective proof that she actually grasps the act and its consequences and has rationally concluded that this would be a value for her? Of course you cannot. Your pretense that she would "consent" is pure pretense.

How do you provide solid, objective proof if this was a full grown adult that she grasps the act and its consequences and has rationally concluded that this would be a value for her? You really can't, short of reading her mind.

Anyway there is a difference between pretense and a reasonable assumption. Without knowing the girl there is no way to decide. I certainly think that it is possible that a 13 year old is capable of consent, just that most probably aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you provide solid, objective proof if this was a full grown adult that she grasps the act and its consequences and has rationally concluded that this would be a value for her? You really can't, short of reading her mind.

Clearly David knows that given he said:

Of course you cannot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing subjective about making age of consent relative to personal factors, provided those personal factors are OBJECTIVE, such as whether or not a person HAS developed maturity. The test I'd give would be based chiefly on ability to live in reality. If someone can't live on their own, they're not ready for sex since they don't have an adult level of maturity.
So write an enforceable objective law that distinguishes between rape and consensual sex, based on the "ability to live in reality". A man's life could be at stake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of debating this 13 year old girl's state of mind, we should be debating John Kintaro's as a psychological degenerate for being sexually attracted to a 13 year old. If that's his value, then something is very wrong with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am neither parent nor uncle, yet John comments are thoroughly disgusting.

I can see negative outcomes for the wrong food and too much time playing videogames. I can't see any such consequences in sex [of adults with children]

I think his comments here are evidence enough of those 'negative consequences'

She has had sex before, and is interested in having it with me, something she verbalized...

Would you mind giving us the contact information for this girl's parents so we can warn them about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ahven't been reading this thread, but has someone already pointed out that children don't even have sexuality? That is, until puberty children are asexual beings.

Well, that's a tricky thing, there. Children can be and many certainly are aware of the physical pleasure that can arise from the stimulation of certain bits, and many children have figured out enough to be able to masturbate to orgasm far before puberty (I don't know, I'm not sure if this works for boys, but for girls it certainly does). On the other hand, if we are going to count sexuality not as the mere desire to have pleasurable sensations from where your swimsuit goes, but as a reaction and response for feelings to another, then I would agree that sexuality does not develop until around puberty. Simply wanting to touch yourself and feel good does not necessarily connect you to a desire for others or even having any clue what to do with those others you would desire. That definitely comes later. For some folks, by this definition, sexuality doesn't even really develop until they are nearly 20, if you're a late bloomer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have stuck with your first instinct.

No, I should consider the question long enough to draw a logically valid and reality-based conclusion. That may take me longer than people with more or different experiences to induce from, or who are just smarter than I am, but I still need to reach the answer through reason with my emotions as a quick check, not final authority. Believe me, I wish I were done with this topic already as the disgust is not lessening, but I need to be rationally convinced my disgust is valid. By all means, exit the thread if you are already convinced and spare yourself the sick feeling in your stomach, unless of course you'd rather convince others of your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you mind giving us the contact information for this girl's parents so we can warn them about you?

I agree with that. The law should not be your deterrent. It is virtually impossible for a 13 year old to be a desirable romantic partner for a moral adult, and her parents have the absolute right to prevent her from having sex. They also have the right to prevent her from seeing you, and they should exercise it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply wanting to touch yourself and feel good does not necessarily connect you to a desire for others or even having any clue what to do with those others you would desire.

Exactly. I'm aware boys can masturbate long before puberty. I'm also aware most boys won't feel any attraction to girls until puberty or later. Therefore speaking of children's sexuality is ridiculous. There isn't any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do so for a reason.

Yeppers, hence the "necessarily" part of that sentence. Humans wouldn't be able to live if children were able to decide, say, whether they wanted to be vaccinated or get educated or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I'm aware boys can masturbate long before puberty. I'm also aware most boys won't feel any attraction to girls until puberty or later. Therefore speaking of children's sexuality is ridiculous. There isn't any.
I don't know...I wrote my first love letter in 2nd grade. I liked girls really early on. Though starting in 3rd grade I developed a pattern of just liking them from afar, never getting up the guts to talk to them.

This doesn't relate to sexual desire, but it does relate to romantic desire. And if that's what you're talking about (capacity for a desire for romance, as opposed to simple physical pleasure), then I'd say you're wrong that children's sexuality is "ridiculous".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The age of consent should probably be lower than the "official" 17 or 18, but really it varies from person to person in terms of maturity level, I suppose. Most people I have ever met, including myself, started having sex around 13 or 14, and it's hard to think of a reason why that should be illegal, especially between people in the same relative age group. That it is illegal now probably is based on religous reasons rather than reason. Now, sex with preteen children is properly illegal because they really haven't developed their mental capacities enough yet to make any type of rational choices in that regard. Teens, however have and I'm sure will always continue to have some form of sex, so it's hard to say why it is illegal. Why can someone legally drive a car, but not have sex? In that age group it is a completely arbitrary and idiotic law.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people I have ever met, including myself, started having sex around 13 or 14, and it's hard to think of a reason why that should be illegal, especially between people in the same relative age group.

Not to be mean to you, EC, but this strikes me as sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be mean to you, EC, but this strikes me as sad.

Why's that? It's a fact. What about it make you sad? You think about 75% of the people I've ever met weren't ready at that age? I suppose in a good many of the cases that is true, but certainly not in all. I don't see how it could be construed by me as you being "mean" either. I mean, it simply is what it is.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a related note, lately I have been thinking about how people act at different ages, and how that has changed over time. It spawned when someone drew to my attention that not-so-long-ago the average American lived only to age 19 (he said as recently as two hundred years ago). It is obvious to me that people are acting younger and younger, well into their twenties or beyond. That strikes me as something awful. Conversely, Rockefeller started Standard Oil when he was younger than me.

That is a huge generalization, but it makes me wonder if generally people are better off acting their "age" now, or were people better off with what was typical before. If one only lives until age 19, is the appropriate age to have sex different than now? Was it common to have sex at a younger age? Did that create problems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know...I wrote my first love letter in 2nd grade. I liked girls really early on. Though starting in 3rd grade I developed a pattern of just liking them from afar, never getting up the guts to talk to them.

Yeah, and I had a "girlfriend" when I was 8. I also played at driving cars, and going to work, and other things adults did. It's part of how people grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it common to have sex at a younger age? Did that create problems?

My paternal grandparents were married in 1952. My grandmother had just turned 15, and my grandfather was 21. Within a year my Dad was born. They are still married to this day and my Grandma's now in her early 70's and my Grandpa in his late 70's. What was the problem that was created. They're early marriage lead directly to my existence, which is obviously a value to me. I suppose they could have waited, but they chose not to, and it worked out for them. Why should a situation that was obviously NOT immoral 56 years ago, now be considered so. Morality can't change with the times as the subjectivists claim. Someone around my age shouldn't be messing around with young teen-age girls, and I know I wouldn't, but what is immoral about teens within 5 or 10 years of each other doing what they want as long as they know that there can possibly be bad results, i.e., early pregnancy, STD's, etc. if they are not careful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is unless it's two boys or two girls of similar ages, then it's bad. <_<

Hey, I don't mind two females at all unless they proclaim to only want other women, i.e, dykes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...