Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sex in front of a child is "child abuse"

Rate this topic


softwareNerd

Recommended Posts

I do not find it anymore ironic than if a minor was speaking on his behalf to drive below the legal age or purchase large amounts of hard liquor!
Ha! I was thinking the same thing, but then I figured that it's really a bit different... I mean, I doubt kids want to see their parents have sex. I can see some teenager male trying to argue for porn though!

Someone else mentioned hard liquor earlier. That's an example where the dose matters and where the current U.S. ages are ridiculously high. Recently, when a 19-year old nephew visited us, I got curious about the law and checked. I found that it would not only be illegal to give him a drink but that it would be illegal even if he was my own son. (The laws vary a lot across states.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When intimacy becomes a spectacle, it loses its intimacy.

I am having trouble visualizing why sex with a beloved partner would be just as meaningful if one engaged in it while knowing that others were watching. To knowingly have an audience under such circumstances seems tantamount to sharing values with the observers that would otherwise be reserved only for your deepest philosophical vision that is your partner. Is this not what is meant by "secondhand"? Furthermore, I just cannot imagine any circumstances where intentionally observing others having sex, when it is not a form of art, would not be "trashy" or hedonistic.

I just do not understand why a rational being would not be uncomfortable in either of those situations.

I agree 100% with both of you.

I find Stargirl's view to not only be incorrect but also absolutely disgusting. I will simply note here that both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have explicit statements on the record in agreement with me on this. I'm saying that not as an argument, but so that you know this is a part of Objectivism and not just my personal opinion.

Here is some proof of that claim:

I want to state, for the record, my own view of what is called "hard-core" pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting. I have not read any of the books or seen any of the current movies belonging to that category, and I do not intend ever to read or see them. The descriptions provided in legal cases, as well as the "modern" touches in "soft-core" productions, are sufficient grounds on which to form an opinion. The reason of my <arl_230> opinion is the opposite of the usual one: I do not regard sex as evil—I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display.

In this respect, modern hippies—with their insistence on personal ugliness or "natural," unglamorous appearance, their undifferentiated, "unisex" style of dressing, and their "uninhibited" freedom to copulate in public—are demonstrating one more aspect of their fundamental affinity with the conventional premises of mysticism: the view of sex as an animal function.

Today, it is the publicly flaunted, disgusting sexuality of hippie youths, of senile repressers, and of their panderers in books and movies, which drives people to support the religionists' clamor for censorship. This aspect of the issue is wider than religious influences: civilized men do not tolerate public displays of sub-animal sex. Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse as disgusting—not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy.

Again, that is not an argument - only a presentation of the Objectivist view. So if there is some conflict with your view, you may want to check your premises.

Stargirl, your view of sex, as far as this aspect is concerned, is that of the nihilistic, collectivist hippies who think that any desire for privacy is an indication that one thinks sex is dirty or shameful. This is completely wrong in the same way and for the same reason that the empiricists are wrong to say that any statement of certainty is dogmatic. In other words, it is a false dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a child sees their parents having intercourse, how is it trivialized? What special and crucial signifigance has been removed?
You've misidentified the argument. It is not about a child seeing an adult (only one of them was her parent) having sex, it was about this specific case where the mother was trivializing sex as a way of warping the child's psyche. I don't have a general position like "never let kids see the deed".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lesson in The Cunning Use of Tags

Stargirl, your view of sex, as far as this aspect is concerned, is that of the nihilistic, collectivist hippies who think that any desire for privacy is an indication that one thinks sex is dirty or shameful.

I do not think desire for privacy necessarily indicates shame or filth.

I do not think a child witnessing their parents have sexual intercourse makes it inherently immoral.

I think your tagging of my view of sex, as far as this aspect it concerned, is sloppy in its intent, and entirely incorrect.

I understand that tags are convenient and necessary, however, it is disordered to call 'hippie', toss in an excerpt about hard-core porn being disgusting (a description I wholly agree with), in order to take control of a topic with a heavy tone of false coherency.

I do not intend to have sex in throngs of hippie-kin like an hog hopping around on public display.

I do intend to point out that it is not inherently self-deprecating to be seen by other humans while having sex.

The intimacy I know of is far greater than physical aloneness with my partner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've misidentified the argument. It is not about a child seeing an adult (only one of them was her parent) having sex, it was about this specific case where the mother was trivializing sex as a way of warping the child's psyche. I don't have a general position like "never let kids see the deed".

Yes I see that I have totally strayed from the specific example, I don't have alot of information from the article at hand, but it sounds to me like the mother and her partner may very well have been portraying sex as an ordinary and trivial act.

So, now I distinguish that what I am advocating is not necessarily in support of this couples manner of raising their child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stargirl,

Would you think it would be good (or right) if people could just be free to publicly walk around completely naked if they want to?

If not, why not?

Thanks.

(The purpose of my questions is to establish if/when the concept of privacy applies in your "sexual ethics".)

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two other thoughts related parents having sex in front of children:

1) Would anyone in here consent to watching your parents have sex right now? My guess is no. If it is an expression of love and so forth, then why not?

2) One of the things that makes sex such a beautiful, personal act is that it is a private thing shared between two lovers. Leaving aside for the moment sexual experimentation involving voyeurism, we generally see sex as a very private thing that is shared only with one's lover. What are you teaching a kid when you force him to take part and watch?

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) One of the things that makes sex such a beautiful, personal act is that it is a private thing shared between two lovers. Leaving aside for the moment sexual experimentation involving voyeurism, we generally see sex as a very private thing that is shared only with one's lover. What are you teaching a kid when you force him to take part and watch?

The emphasis is mine. I do not think that anybody here advocated forcing a child to witness such an act. Perhaps a better question would be "what are you teaching your child when you are indifferent or even approving if he watches?"

What would make [human intercourse] "not a form of art"?

I meant, not in a novel, movie, television show, theatrical performance or the like.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you teaching a kid when you force him to take part and watch?
I do not think that anybody here advocated forcing a child to witness such an act.
I don't think the issue of force and consent is the key factor when it's a parent-child situation. I think the real question is whether the type of "taking part" involved in looking is to be prohibited in the way physically taking part would be.

As many, on various sides of this debate, have implied: one has to go beyond the act itself and look for meaning from the whole context. If all the details of the situation show that "looking" is part of a sequence of events leading up the child being an actual, active participant in sex with a parent, then that's one thing. However, one cannot jump to that conclusion "looking" is equivalent to having sex with a parent. If a hippie couple want to demonstrate that "love is free" or whatever to their kid, then, no matter how disgusting one finds their views, the damage they do to their kid is ideological, not physical nor psychological. It isn't the role of the government to interfere with ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a hippie couple want to demonstrate that "love is free" or whatever to their kid, then, no matter how disgusting one finds their views, the damage they do to their kid is ideological, not physical nor psychological. It isn't the role of the government to interfere with ideology.
I think this is correct, and extends to teaching kids to be tree-huggers, religious, altruists, or nihilists, even though it's psychologically sick to be any of those things. The merit that I find in this case is only in what I conjecture is going on in the specific case, of getting at dad through the child. Another solution would be to prevent future harm by terminating the mother's rights, but in the courts of today, a criminal conviction may be necessary first, to get a clear ruling that she's an unfit mother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point. Intimacy is part of what makes sex good. However, there is a big difference between immoral and illegal. Why should it be against the law to have sex in public or to put pornography on a billboard or anything like that? It's not coercing anyone.

A complex topic, to which I didn't mean to imply an answer; I was only addressing the moral aspect.. I believe there is a thread going on about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think desire for privacy necessarily indicates shame or filth.

A good clarification, considering your previous statements:

Since when does sex need to be hidden from children, as though it were some guilty secretive act of old people?

...

I would say that attaching 'shame' to sex is potentially more harmful to a child than the possibility of them viewing their parents have intercourse.

I'd say if you take that seriously, it invalidates the argument made by those previous statements.

I think your tagging of my view of sex, as far as this aspect it concerned, is sloppy in its intent, and entirely incorrect.

I did add the qualifier, "at least in this aspect," which I think delimits the label appropriately. Perhaps further clarification will bear that out, however.

I do intend to point out that it is not inherently self-deprecating to be seen by other humans while having sex.

To answer in the form of a question, "Is it inherently deprecating to the sexual act to be seen by other humans while having sex?" I'd say it is, and therefore yes to your question as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, that is not an argument - only a presentation of the Objectivist view. So if there is some conflict with your view, you may want to check your premises.

Ok, so its not an argument, so there is no implication that the "Objectivist" view of this is actually correct, its just a meaningless statement of authority, readily admitted? If so, then why should any of us who disagree "check our premises"? Why should I think I am wrong, just because Ayn Rand didn't like porn (which she had never seen, so apparently she didn't like the idea of porn (or others' evaluations and descriptions), that it can't possibly be done morally)? Why should I assume that SHE IS RIGHT and that I AM WRONG, automatically? Why should I disrespect MY MIND and give hers unquestioning reverence?? ( i do respect her greatly as one of the greatest minds ever. And since I agree with her on 99 percent of what I have read of hers I think she is right about a lot of things, but that doesn't make her infallible nor omniscient. I respect her mind, but I respect mine more.)

Anytime I read something of Ayn Rand's that doesn't have an argument or stem from actual evidence (like having observed porn firsthand) and it doesn't integrate without contradiction into the rest of my knowledge, I throw the statement out, I do not hceck my premises unless what she (or anyone else) actually makes sense.

Reality is the standard of truth, and MY MIND and MY EXPERIENCE is MY method of attaining it, if I am going to be convinced of something by Ayn Rand (or by anyone) they have to appeal to MY understanding, not just try to appeal to some set of Objectivist Dogma (which is what you treated it as by injecting her views into the discussion and explicitly stating it wasn't an argument).

Not to get too personal Inspector, but you do this A LOT. Maybe you need to check some of your premises.

[edit=spellcheck]

Edited by IAmMetaphysical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so its not an argument, so there is no implication that the "Objectivist" view of this is actually correct, its just a meaningless statement of authority, readily admitted?

I am not using the quotation as a substitute for an argument (I said that specifically), so no I am not using it to imply that because Ayn Rand said it that it must be correct. I explicitly stated my purposes. Here they are again:

1) That the position in question is the Objectivist position.

2) That, if you claim to agree with Objectivism entirely, you cannot disagree with the position stated. I.e. check the premise that you are an Objectivist.

3) Since I presume this disagreement to be a previously unknown fact, I am stating that therefore, one should investigate the Objectivist position on the matter to see if you agree with it or not. ("check your premises")

If so, then why should any of us who disagree "check our premises"?

Of course, if you do not think that Ayn Rand and Objectivism's position on a matter is at least worth investigating, then you are free to act on that.

Why should I think I am wrong, just because Ayn Rand didn't like porn

I said you should check your premises, i.e. investigate the matter, not that you should think or assume that you are wrong.

Anytime I read something of Ayn Rand's that doesn't have an argument or stem from actual evidence (like having observed porn firsthand) and it doesn't integrate without contradiction into the rest of my knowledge, I throw the statement out, I do not hceck my premises unless what she (or anyone else) actually makes sense.

That's where we differ. If something Ayn Rand said does not integrate into the rest of my knowledge, I investigate the matter until I understand why. I do not "throw [Ayn Rand] out" simply because a statement of hers does not make sense to me. I would continue that search for sense until it did make sense to me, at which point I would either accept or reject it. I would not ignore her statement or assume that she was talking nonsense for a change. I would assume that she is probably making sense, but I do not yet understand how, until I have solid evidence to suggest otherwise.

If I was going to decide that she was talking nonsense (which would be necessary for me to "throw out" a part of Objectivism), then I would not make such a conclusion until I understood it and why I made it.

If understanding eluded me, then I would consider the matter an open and important question - not something that I can "throw out." Naturally, in the meantime my opinion would still be my opinion; I would not lose it or reject it.

The difference between this and Dogmatism may be subtle, but it is critical and essential.

Not to get too personal Inspector, but you do this A LOT. Maybe you need to check some of your premises.

[edit=spellcheck]

Maybe you need to check your premise of what it means to provide a clarification as to what the Objectivist position is on a board that is for the discussion of Objectivism.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I have children of my own, I intend for them to be raised in an envronment where they can be exposed to healthy relationships, particularly relationships of sexual intimacy. This does not mean I intend to have sex infront of my children, this does not mean I will gather the kids into the bedroom to watch it like a show, because a show sex is not a spectacle. I intend to point out that children being exposed to sex or intimacy between their parents is not a bad thing.

I see no reason to exclude a child from being aware of the relations between his parents. Parents are prominent figures in a child's life, so who better to set a positive example of a meaningful human relationship?

For instance, my own parents were affectionate with one another in front of my sister and I. I never saw them have sex, but I felt an incredible sense of love, and was aware of intimacy in our family's home. My parents rarely displayed affection to each other in public, at least not in the same open way they would do it at home. This would serve as an early example of what privacy means.

The key here, is that I think children especially should be aware of the intimacy and postive relationship of their parents. For a child to be excluded from exposure to any kind of meaningful intimacy between their parents could make it more difficult to form their own relationships, emtionally and physically.

A positive environment is not necessary of course, as adults we can all come to terms with what our own parents lack, and make our own decisions on how govern our selves. I do know that personally I felt an incredible sense of strength and closeness in my family as a child, largely because my parents did not attempt to alienate their children from being a valuable part of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no reason to exclude a child from being aware of the relations between his parents. Parents are prominent figures in a child's life, so who better to set a positive example of a meaningful human relationship?

...

The key here, is that I think children especially should be aware of the intimacy and postive relationship of their parents

Right! That is however very different from having kids watch their parents having sex.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) That the position in question is the Objectivist position.

An important point has been made on this board many times in the past. There is a distinction between those things which represent the personal views of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff and there are those things which represent actual aspects or principles of the philosophy of Objectivism. The two passages you quoted appear to be more like personal views expressed based on their application of the philosophy of Objectivism rather than being the Objectivist position (implying that viewpoint is essential to being consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An important point has been made on this board many times in the past. There is a distinction between those things which represent the personal views of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff and there are those things which represent actual aspects or principles of the philosophy of Objectivism. The two passages you quoted appear to be more like personal views expressed based on their application of the philosophy of Objectivism rather than being the Objectivist position (implying that viewpoint is essential to being consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism).

Yes, that is an important point. As such, I think the following statements are philosophical in nature, and are indeed a part of the philosophy of Objectivism:

I do not regard sex as evil—I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display.

This speaks for itself.

In this respect, modern hippies—with... their "uninhibited" freedom to copulate in public—are demonstrating one more aspect of their fundamental affinity with the conventional premises of mysticism: the view of sex as an animal function.

This is a philosophical statement: that the hippie view of sex as an animal function is a premise of mysticism, utterly incompatible with Objectivism. It does not say that only mysticism holds this premise, but it does say that, in the case of the hippies, that is the philosophy at work.

Today, it is the publicly flaunted, disgusting sexuality of hippie youths, of senile repressers, and of their panderers in books and movies, which drives people to support the religionists' clamor for censorship. This aspect of the issue is wider than religious influences: civilized men do not tolerate public displays of sub-animal sex.

This is a clear statement that a refusal to tolerate "public displays of sub-animal sex" is not necessarily religious in nature and that civilized men - presumably Objectivists - will not tolerate it. Note that this is not a statement of what action will stem from their non-toleration of it; it may or may not imply illegality but it certainly implies that they will not like it.

Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse as disgusting—not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy.

Again, a philosophical statement, and again it speaks for itself.

I think everything excerpted here is a statement of philosophy, and these viewpoints are in fact essential to being consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not regard sex as evil—I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life{philosophical}, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display{personal opinion}.

In this respect, modern hippies—with... their "uninhibited" freedom to copulate in public—are demonstrating one more aspect of their fundamental affinity with the conventional premises of mysticism: the view of sex as an animal function{Do hippies regard it as such? Wouldn't more in depth study be needed to know this? Isn't it then an application of philosophy rather than philosophy??.

Today, it is the publicly flaunted, disgusting{opinion} sexuality of hippie youths, of senile repressers, and of their panderers in books and movies, which drives people to support the religionists' clamor for censorship. This aspect of the issue is wider than religious influences: civilized men do not tolerate{?} public displays of sub-animal sex.{do they not? any evidence or argument to support this? To support even the assumption that to display sex makes it "sub-animal" if that is even possible?}

Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse as disgusting{factual statistic, hardly philosophical} —not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy{again, is there any support or argument that exlains why the nature of certain values requires privacy?}.

Philosophy deals with the widest abstractions man has to deal with. The special sciences, like psychology, deal with issues such as "is sex something to be hidden from outsiders?" Philosophy tells us that sex is a value, and that value for man means "supportive of the life of a rational being." To be able to conclude that sex ceases to be a value of this kind when shared between more than two people, or when viewed, requires much more information than what is available to the general man, and in the general man's context of experience and knowledge.

Edited by IAmMetaphysical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IAmMetaphysical,

I do not regard sex as evil—I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life{philosophical}, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display{personal opinion}.

What makes you say that? It is the same sentence. Its importance is philosophical, thus "too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display" is also philosophical.

In this respect, modern hippies—with... their "uninhibited" freedom to copulate in public—are demonstrating one more aspect of their fundamental affinity with the conventional premises of mysticism: the view of sex as an animal function{Do hippies regard it as such? Wouldn't more in depth study be needed to know this? Isn't it then an application of philosophy rather than philosophy??.

Ayn Rand frequently discussed the philosophies of the New Left, including the hippies. Her assertion is a statement of her evaluation of the hippie philosophy. We are not here to question the depth or accuracy of her study of hippies, only that her statement about them is one of philosophy. How are the "premises of mysticism" an "application of philosophy" rather than "philosophy?"

Today, it is the publicly flaunted, disgusting{opinion} sexuality of hippie youths, of senile repressers, and of their panderers in books and movies, which drives people to support the religionists' clamor for censorship.

Yes, you are right: "disgusting" is a word of opinion. That does not preclude the possibility that one finds something disgusting because of philosophical reasons, and I believe that is the case here.

This aspect of the issue is wider than religious influences

As I said, "This is a clear statement that a refusal to tolerate 'public displays of sub-animal sex' is not necessarily religious in nature"

Do you dispute that that statement is being made and is a statement of philosophy?

: civilized men do not tolerate{?} public displays of sub-animal sex.{do they not? any evidence or argument to support this? To support even the assumption that to display sex makes it "sub-animal" if that is even possible?}

Evidence to support it is not the topic of discussion. If you want to dispute a point of Objectivism, go to the debate forum. The question is: is this or is this not a statement of philosophy?

Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse as disgusting{factual statistic, hardly philosophical}

That would have been true if the sentence had ended there. But it didn't. It went on:

—not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy

...To a statement of philosophy. The fact that may people find it disgusting is a statistic. The fact that they "regard a public representation of sexual intercourse as disgusting... because it is a value" is a statement of philosophy.

{again, is there any support or argument that exlains why the nature of certain values requires privacy?}.

If you would like to make the assertion that a particular aspect of Objectivism is unsupported, then go to the debate forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that some parents are emotionally (and physically) distant with their little ones, sometimes to the point of alienation.

Particularly while the child is young, I think it is important to set positive examples for living life progressively, particularly in human relationships.

I do not think I would consider my child 'the public'.

(Again, I am not defending the parents in the topic article, but just expanding on why I don't necessarily think parental intimacy around children is immoral.)

I do not take a stagnant statement position on this idea, like 'Children must never see sex' or 'Sex near children is immoral', including 'sex infront of your kids is good for them.' There are so many variables written off by statements like those.

Edited by Stargirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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