Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Child sexuality

Rate this topic


John Kintaro
 Share

Recommended Posts

If my mother knew about my sexual experience, she would die from a heart attack. Some parents are just afraid that their children will learn where babies come from. That's why pornography and other adult material is off-limits for kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

These sort of statistics are highly misleading becasue they are skewed by the large number of babies who died young. If you look throughout history, youll find that the average life-expectancy of people given that they have reached at least the age of 12 (to use an arbitrary number) hasnt actually changed that much (unless they lived in an unstable country during a major war/plague/etc). Look up famous people from 200+ years ago and youll find that many lived till 60+.

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate please? How would you determine psychological harm (in general, not this specific case)?

That is for a psychologist to determine not me. Also, that is beside my point. My point was that for a parent to cause such harm to a child is wrong and the government has just as much right to step in against as if when the parent causes physical harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often wondered if the apparently arbitrary ages set by law for sex, drinking, voting, driving, etc. are not too high for some and too low for others. Is it at all possible to come up with a better method for deciding the appropriate age for someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often wondered if the apparently arbitrary ages set by law for sex, drinking, voting, driving, etc. are not too high for some and too low for others. Is it at all possible to come up with a better method for deciding the appropriate age for someone?
What makes you think the age is arbitrary? Here's an analogy. In Colorado, class 2 felonies are punishable by prison term between 8 and 12 years. The upper limit is "arbitrary" -- why not 10 years, or 16 years? You simply don't know the reason for the particular values, and for defining crimes and responsibilities, there must be clear and objective definitions. The fact that minors are not held to contracts means that no sane person would attempt to engage a minor in a contract since it can't be enforced against the minor. As a businessman, I would need to know which people it is that can take my setuff without me having recourse in the courts. The answer is 18 generally, but in Alabama, Alaska and Wyoming it is 19 and in Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico and Mississippi it is 21. Thus the number is stated objectively and the determination "is bound" / "is not bound" is non-arbitrary. The reason is also objective: it is based on a consideration of the facts that are relevant to proper contract-formation, specifically the capacity to "make an agreement" (which is distinct from the ability to "make the signs typically understood as indicating an agreement"). You might be right in concluding that Penn, PR and Wyo have made an error of judgment regarding that presumptive age of responsibility; I can't say that I think that the 19 year old minority opinion is clearly mistaken.

The only alternative to an apparently-arbitrary age requirement is an even more problematic and apparently-arbitrary performance test. There is no physical examination or blood test that will reveal that a person has the proper mental state so that they can actually reach an agreement. Testing people on their knowledge of US history is arbitrary (it has no relationship to the ability to enter into an agreement) and disfunctional (way too may adults would fail the test). I conclude that the seeming arbitrariness of legal ages is not in fact arbitrary, it simply reflects the necessity of encoding facts of reality in the law, and it is the best method yet devised of doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality can't change with the times as the subjectivists claim.

Morality, however, *does* change with context and the context of our lives now is, in some respects, very different than it was when your grandparents were children. It is sad because adolescents in many cases don't have the material to decide what they actually want out of life and how to achieve it.

In my view, if you aren't proposing to walk out the door and support yourself, you shouldn't be having sex. This is not an easy thing for many adults to do, much less barely-pubescent quasi-children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legitimizing sexual interaction between adults and children is a symptom of Pragmatism. Notice that sexual abuse parallels the rise of Pragmatism.

In the absence of moral principles, you have just "what works."

Years ago, two child molesters were on the Sally Jesse Raphael show. She asked them why they did it. Their answer was that the child would respond sexually to them. Therefore, "it was OK."

What if you bashed these guys with a sled hammer on their bear feet? They would respond. They might even think twice about doing it next time. Must be OK. (At least in their case, it is.)

The idea that "if you touch a child's genitals and you get a response, therefore it is OK" to go further and further, is an invasion of the child's privacy, at the very least, as well as preying on the child's physiological functions which they have no control over. Their body betrays them and that is why there is so much guilt associated with being molested. That mind/body confusion rests on their inner voice saying "no," but their body not following suit. No one can predict the long-term or short-term psychological reaction of child to what is abuse—the abuse of your access and the abuse of their life, both physical and mental integrity.

What right do you have to "teach" them anything? Are you the saintly altruist that must go out of your way to teach children about their sex organs?

No child needs a lesson on what they can and should discover on their own. Adult help is not needed. Before you can love others, or have relations, you must learn to love yourself and your own identity. Your first long-term sexual experience must be your own self-discovery. SELF.

The only reason for sex ed is to avoid disease and pregnancy. The reason for sexual morality is to give young adults the tools to find a long-term relationship with a partner that enhances their life by giving them guidance to judge character and the knowledge of how sex relates to their widest values.

Do you seriously believe that you will provide a long-term relationship with a child, while you are rotting in prison? Or that your lessons will have any genuine benefit to the child's health and character? A girl that has sexual activity with others as a child is much more likely to be sexually active in her early teens, thus inviting the threats of death by AIDS.

You don't have a choice in being sexual stimulated, if you are stimulated by physical action, just as if someone put out the aroma of fresh bread. You would take a deeper breathe to sniff more. It is strictly a physiological phenomenon. Pouring a bucket of stinking vomit on the floor to the sounds of someone's vomiting throws would equally stimulate the regurgitative response. Does that mean we need more of it?

Even if adult-child sex was an immediate pleasure, so perhaps is a toy or a ice cream cone. There are plenty of ways to entertain children in their innocence, without destroying it.

Certainly, we could engineer a drug with no side effects that could give a great high. But that doesn't mean you are not evading some very basic moral thinking that a civilized person should have, in contrast, to the modern savage, who gets a few kicks while omitting moral principles from his life.

There are some disturbing statements in his threat that belie an honest interest in the topic. Under the guise of not wanting to corrupt a child's sexual outlook because of Christian Puritanism, one enters into a riff on engaging in sexual activity with children—and then proceeds to justify it in pragmatic and vulgar terms, such as "there was a society in which people porked their kids."

This I submit is not something of an honest inquiry, but comes from someone who is a real danger, a threat to the children around him, someone who is seeking to self-legitimize a fantasy by publicly appealing to others and preying on their ignorance/reluctance to mount a firm moral response. If he doesn't get that, what do you imagine he will do?

It is a fantasy to imagine a child who has no reluctance to have sexual activity, or a child who will later consent, or that such "consent" has any moral standing. There is no such child. Do not confuse "playfulness" or "curiosity," whatever that may mean to you, with consent.

Do not confuse physiology with consent, or anticipated consent, or that you are helping altruistically out of the goodness of your heart, something that children have the right to learn on their own, without God or you, looking over their shoulder. "Before I can say I love you, I first must know how to say the I." Leave a kid's I alone. Get your own "I" and fix it.

You should really blow your brains out if you want to do children a favor.

Edited by city
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, if you aren't proposing to walk out the door and support yourself, you shouldn't be having sex. This is not an easy thing for many adults to do, much less barely-pubescent quasi-children.
Just for curiosity's sake, would you elaborate on this? I can imagine many contexts where the "support myself" line wouldn't apply. Probably more than half of high school seniors are having sex, and I see no problem with that. Also, most college students are living off their parent's buck or their own future buck, which in the mind works out about the same. Should they not have sex?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Age of Consent.

For those of you who think you had consent, did you have the consent of your parents? Did the girl have the consent of hers? Probably not.

The purpose of consent is to maintain the right of the parent to protect their child from all the problems associated with sexual relations that arise from sex with people whatever their age. It is not about the child having the right to give consent, but the right of the parent to keep others off the child. (There is also the parallel, but deeper, issue of voluntary consent to sexual activity.)

Imagine being a parent and your daughter has become pregnant. Do you force your daughter to have an abortion? What if she says no! Who is to support that child? How is the parent -child relationship to go on in that situation? How is the child supposed to raise the child? What job can she get? And how is she supposed to grow into a normal self-supporting adult, if she forgoes education to wipe ass for the rest of her teenage years? What in the world can a teenager teach a child, when she herself has learned little or nothing of adult life? Your family is effectively ruined. The spiral into the slavery of teen pregnancy begins with pretending that teens are adults.

The issue of parental consent is the core of age of consent. The parent has the right to negate any sexual activity of their child because they have the obligation to raise any children of their underage children. If you believe in abortion rights, you should equally believe in parental consent as a requirement for your teens sexual activity. In the name of individual rights, do not pretend teens are more than teens.

Even if the parent said yes, there is the issue of the child-teen's adult informed consent—which is not fully effective until they are adult. That is why the perverts behind these arranged marriage cults have grievously violated the rights of the under-aged person. A child or teen is not a barnyard animal—even if it works out to be a long-term marriage. Serfdom lasted for 800 years in Europe, but it didn't justify it.

The activities of a teen marriage or teen pregnancy entirely throw off one's life course, into things that otherwise undermine your personal sovereignty. Is teen parenthood or teen marriage really valid? No. Once you are an adult, you could just say, well, "I was young, here's my baby, or my teen marriage isn't valid now," which you would expect they have ever right to do. You become a (contractual-capable) person before the law at 18.

It is for the sake of your perspective as an adult that your rights to consensual sex become effective only as an adult.

It is the obligation of parents and the law to preserve a child's integrity, as much as possible, until they can make adult (life-impacting) decisions for which they as adults can be morally responsible for, and obligated to bear the long-term financial responsibilities for, such as children. This is why it is wrong for adult women to get pregnant through sex with teen boys. Is the boy responsible for child support at age 18? Isn't that slavery?

The issue of consent generally is the right of adults to make informed voluntary decisions, where adult responsibility can be expected. That's simply not possible with teens. They have free will. They can change their mind 1000 different ways by the time they are 18 and usually do. For every teen who was thrilled to have sex at age 14, 15, and 16, there are equal numbers or better who wished they had made that decision as an adult. All teens have the right to enter adulthood as virgins. The two protections for that are age of consent (giving the parent a veto with legal protections) and voluntary consent (vetoing rapists and vetoing your own teen silliness until you are an adult).

Edited by city
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of consent is to maintain the right of the parent to protect their child from all the problems associated with sexual relations that arise from sex with people whatever their age. It is not about the child having the right to give consent, but the right of the parent to keep others off the child. (There is also the parallel, but deeper, issue of voluntary consent to sexual activity.)
This is a confused view of rights and parenting. A person has the right to control and dispose of an animal as property for which reason it is a dog-owner's right to sterilize the beast because having a pregnant dog qould be an inconvenience. Children are not property, and thus there is no "right to protect from problems". The child has rights, because it is a person, and people have rights; but the child is incapable of exclusively exercising those rights, in particular the ones that regard reasoned courses of action. The parent therefore has the responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the child, considering only the interests of the child. That is, the parent acts as the child would act, were the child mature enough to make decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legitimizing sexual interaction between adults and children is a symptom of Pragmatism. Notice that sexual abuse parallels the rise of Pragmatism.

In the absence of moral principles, you have just "what works."

Years ago, two child molesters were on the Sally Jesse Raphael show. She asked them why they did it. Their answer was that the child would respond sexually to them. Therefore, "it was OK."

Right on, city. This whole thread has struck me from the beginning as nothing but a creepy attempt to rationalize adult-child sex a.k.a. pedophilia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for curiosity's sake, would you elaborate on this? I can imagine many contexts where the "support myself" line wouldn't apply. Probably more than half of high school seniors are having sex, and I see no problem with that. Also, most college students are living off their parent's buck or their own future buck, which in the mind works out about the same. Should they not have sex?

They shouldn't have sex if they can't take *responsibility* for the potential consequences. There's a difference between "being aware of" and "being responsible for". Teens may be aware of potential pregnancy/disease, but if they screw up then their PARENTS are the ones who have to PAY for it. No moral person would happily foist responsibility for their actions on someone else like that. Sex being an intensely personal matter, in my mind you're ready for it on the day when you can own all the consequences fully.

Now, high school seniors and college students ARE approaching (or at) the day when they can propose to shoulder the responsibility and do it on their own--they may need a little help picking up the load--which most parents are happy to grant--but they are not freeloaders forcing their personal choices down their parents' throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parent having to pay for their child's child is a function of the law, not an answer to the moral question. You have to first demonstrate that it SHOULD be their responsibility under the law. In California, once a girl becomes pregnant she is an emancipated minor. The parents are not responsible for her or her child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parent having to pay for their child's child is a function of the law, not an answer to the moral question. You have to first demonstrate that it SHOULD be their responsibility under the law. In California, once a girl becomes pregnant she is an emancipated minor. The parents are not responsible for her or her child.

Right and then that "emancipated" child in California gets all kinds of help from the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several viable topics are contained in this thread, but child sexuality is not one of them. I'm starting new threads to address the following issues, in the hopes that those driven away by the disgusting nature of some posts on this thread will rejoin the conversation:

1. Children's rights under the law (what right do they have from an Objective basis?)

2. Parents' responsibilities/privileges under the law (what must parents do? what may they do?)

3. Psychological harm under the law

I hope these topics prove to be of interest to many of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me start fresh. Anybody who believes that somehow, at the age of 18, you magically become mature is a believer in Intrinsicism's notion of sex.

Not true, unless you mean "the exact moment one turns 18 is absolute," but I doubt anyone thinks that. There is some level of give and take, but 18 is a pretty reasonable age based on current brain science. Myelination slows down significantly by that age.

To ground the discussion a bit, below is a fairly concise explanation of the adolescent brain.

Adolescent Brain Development: The concept of "plasticity"

During childhood, there is an overproduction of neuronal tissue that is not designated in a specific synaptic pathway. In simple terms, the brain is redundant to a larger degree, possessing many more unconnected neurons than an adult brain. As experiences are accumulated, connections are made and the neural pathways become fixed, as when language is acquired. You could say that this is when cells that are fired together, get wired together. Once the wiring process is completed, those neurons are fixed in synaptic pathways.

During adolescence, this "plasticity" is more pronounced than in childhood, even though overall neuronal cell production decreases. What begins to increase in its stead is something called myelination, where the neurons become coated with a type of electrically-conductive material. This is a process that could be likened to a turbo-charge effect in the brain, creating faster connections between synapses. These changes are especially apparent in MRIs and cell biopsies of the frontal lobes. This is an area of the brain that is involved in such higher functions as planning, decision-making, impulse control, language, memory, and others. During adolescence, the shift towards control of all these functions into the frontal lobes is called frontalization. So, even though total gray matter does decrease from childhood highs, performance of certain tasks becomes more focused and efficient. (Think about the reflexes of young athletes or soldiers and also about how linear their problem-solving abilities are at this time…turbo-charged yes, but also lacking in adult experiences which allow for cross-referencing a larger pool of synaptic pathway choices.) So, the adolescent brain is full of undesignated neuronal connections while at the same time, those connections that are designated are moving super fast and yet are very subject to linear patterns due to lack of experience (Sowell, et al, 1999, 2001; Paus, et al, 1999).

Further changes are occurring such as the decrease of gray matter in the parietal lobes, where sensory information is processed. On the other hand, gray matter increases in the occipital lobes, which are dedicated to processing visual information, until the mid-twenties for most adults. Gray matter in the temporal lobes, involved in memory and visual and auditory processing, usually does not reach maximum until around 16-17 years of age. Sub-cortical changes, especially in the corpus collosum, a bundle of axons which allow communication between hemispheres in the brain, increase in size, while neurotransmitters, the hormones which regulate all neural activity, are in flux throughout adolescence. These substances such as dopamine, GABA, and serotonin, facilitate where and how information is delivered in the brain and how that information is processed and interpreted (Sowell, et al, 2001).

To recapitulate, adolescent behavior is not arbitrary. They react and respond normally for their stage of development, which is a time of great change to the actual physical structure of their brains as well as how their brains process information and make connections. Adolescents behave and think differently from children or adults because of their developmental biology.

http://www.adtsea.iup.edu/adtsea/articles/...be-3b6e236f856b

This leads to:

# Adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behaviors when they are in groups than when they're alone. Real-life situations are usually infused with emotion, elevated arousal, and a generally euphoric mood—unlike the hypothetical events postulated in investigational settings.

# Adolescents' sensitivity to rewards appears to be different than in adults, prompting them to seek higher levels of novelty and stimulation to achieve the same feeling of pleasure.

# Self-regulation includes interrupting a risky behavior, thinking before acting, and choosing among different courses of action. But the maturation of neural networks governing self-regulation doesn't occur until late in adolescence.

# Increased risk-taking during adolescence is normal and biologically driven. Rather than trying to change this behavior, Steinberg suggested such measures as increasing the driving age, raising the price of cigarettes, and enforcing laws restricting alcohol sales.

http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/main.asp?intSubsectionID=320

Their brains are metaphysically incapable of making a fully contextual decision. Because of that they are not granted the same rights nor are they held to the same level of rights that a fully developed human is. Their parent own hold their rights for them. Not just sexually, but in terms of all aspects of their behavior. The "rights" they do possess are granted to them by those(parents and teachers) who do hold power over them based on their capacity as determined by the parents.

As a side note, they find that myelination continues until 28 in women and 32 in men, though at a slower rate. I thought this was interesting in light of the facts that the presidency requires that the person be at least 35 years of age and the Leonard Peikoff wrote(forget where) that a person is not philosophically mature until 35. Mature, not meaning "grown up" so much as stabilized. They are fully formed and not likely to incur radical changes in view past that point, for good or bad. At least, thats how I understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said I was particularly interested in this girl, just that she is interested in me and has plainly said it. I made a post about this and it was removed, by the looks, or maybe I didn't make it. I wanted to see what people think of this issue, and have.

Simply though, it looks on the most part people protect kids from ... in this case. There are valid reasons to protect Children, educate them, do whatever. There are some pretty invalid ones that have become popular parenting, on the most part making sex come across as some kind of pain can be particularly damaging to a child later in life. This can stem indirectly or directly from religious teaching, and for some reason those who aren’t religious just hop on the bandwagon and do the same.

I hope you can at least understand for someone like me who didn't have such an "innocent" childhood, it is incredibly hard to understand what value there is having one, having never had one. Innocent... of what? That very word just seems to imply that there is some guilt in sexuality, which is exactly what Rand seemed to be against. It is what reason should be against also.

My arguments are not because I want to have sex with children. Simply I see a taboo taboo harming a lot more Children than it really helps. My argument essentially brands any "modern pedophile" worse, because by doing what they do, they make the initial act in making a child sexualized, in a world of Children that are not, and the effects are alienating for that child. If I was a pedophile, I’d have reason to stop from my own arguments and so they’re not really arguments to justify pedophilia whole-sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I never said I was particularly interested in this girl, just that she is interested in me and has plainly said it. I made a post about this and it was removed, by the looks, or maybe I didn't make it. I wanted to see what people think of this issue, and have.

- Did you not mention earlier that this fealing was mutual, and the only reason you've been backing off (given that you are telling the truth saying you have) is the present laws regarding sex with children?

When it comes to what I think, its nothing strange about a thirteen year old girl wanting to do something sexual to you (that dosent meen she has a full understanding of what). Twenty year olds are usually more physically attractive then thirteen year old boys. But the fact that your considering this is wrong, first off its a betrail towards the girls parents - entrusting her with another adult, presumably thinking you have little intention of having sex with her.

Secondly its highly disturbing that you would not sexually and socially prioritise girls your own age.

There are no thirteen year olds girls I know interested in me, and why is that?

Because I dont hang out with thirteen year old girls (!). And I would seriously advice you to meet more girls your age. You should quickly find them more attractive, intellectual (to some extent ;) ) then this kid your mentoring.

Simply though, it looks on the most part people protect kids from ... in this case. There are valid reasons to protect Children, educate them, do whatever. There are some pretty invalid ones that have become popular parenting, on the most part making sex come across as some kind of pain can be particularly damaging to a child later in life. This can stem indirectly or directly from religious teaching, and for some reason those who aren’t religious just hop on the bandwagon and do the same.

- I see no reason why parents should explain sex to there kids, beyond the basics regarding pregnancy and STDs. Most healthy thing is, in my oppinion, that they find this out on there own. There is obviously no problem with children experementing with eachother - but when there is an extensive agedifference, or an adult is involved, it becomes a case of abuse. Aswell as outright disgusting, obviously.

I hope you can at least understand for someone like me who didn't have such an "innocent" childhood, it is incredibly hard to understand what value there is having one, having never had one. Innocent... of what? That very word just seems to imply that there is some guilt in sexuality, which is exactly what Rand seemed to be against. It is what reason should be against also.

- I havent seen it clearly mentioned earlier, but are you saying that you had intimite moments with other kids as a kid, or that adults had sex with you?

The first is quite common.

P.S.

English is not my first language ;)

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...