Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sex in front of a child is "child abuse"

Rate this topic


softwareNerd

Recommended Posts

...non-consensual baseball. Yes, that is a problem.

The point is that rape is bad and non-consensual sex is rape.

So the point where it is harmful is in the non-consent, not in the sex, and not in the fact that the child does not understand. I would then point out that a lot of what parent's make a child do is not by consent of the child and actually most of the time is against the child's wishes. What about these?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd like to bring into this argument the fact that emotional damage can only really be measured by judging how much less they are capable of doing things such as being productive, honest, et cetera, and not simply how much they dislike it. Happiness affecting issues can only be judged by showing that the person is emotionally maladjusted enough that they exhibit symptoms of mental illness. I think even in the case where there's nothing ON PRINCIPLE wrong with doing something to your child, if it AFFECTS them negatively then they are responsible for REVERSING said effect. If having sex in front of your child damages the child, then rather than punish the adults by making them go to prison or taking the child away, simply require them to put the child through therapy. And remember, that's an IF. It's up to psychologists to determine IF you've done damage to the child. Necessarily, said psychologists should exhibit objectivity, preferrably a la Ayn Rand.

Another thing is that sex isn't inherently evil. Nor is it inherently good. Sex as equals is not harmful at all, no matter what the age. Sex with one as a kind of authority figure over the other is harmful. So if a 17 year old and a 15 year old do it in some form or another but there is no issue of authority, it should at most be penalized by community service, and at least nothing at all since neither of them are 18. Or perhaps some kind of service to the more vulnerable child by the less vulnerable child, with relative age only being a factor and not the totality of the equation. Unless of course one tried to use some kind of authority. Then the child that tried to use authority is being coercive. ((I had to edit that last part in because I knew raising the issue of authority without using it would be confusing.))

At any rate, I think most or all of you are failing to classify things by their essentials. I can't give a good example of this except to say that topic drift has occurred in such a manner that the issues involved with this are widening rather than narrowing as any good argument should do. Is it that hard to trace an issue back to its essentials? XP

Edited by Starblade Enkai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Threads about sex go on for 13,000 pages of argument.
Actually, 2 pages of argument of 12,998 pages of posturing.

I think some of the problem comes from using the word "consent". In fact, consent simply means nothing more that "voluntarily saying yes, agreeing", and a child can certainly say yes or agree to a sex act without being forced to say "yes". What we really mean is "appropriately informed consent", so for example we like contracts where A agrees to do something on the condition that B does another thing, but this has to work under the assumption that A and B both understand what they are receiving and what they are required to do, and entered into the agreement with that knowledge. That's the only sense in which it makes sense to say that an adult can't have sex with a child -- (it is assumed that) the child cannot comprehend what they are getting into. The issue of harm is not exactly irrelevant, but it has to take second place to the fact that to a certain extent, children are incapable of entering into agreements.

With the case of a contract with a minor, the contract would be ordinarily nullified, and the child would be released from any contractual obligation. Property transfered from the child would be returned (within some limits), in an attempt to return the child to the status antes quo. The thing about sex is, you can't return the child to the status antes quo, and that is what, in my mind, justifies preemptorily and statutorily prohibiting sex with children.

The issue of harm plays a role in that, sometimes, children end up with a disbenefit because there has been some kind of consensual relationship that doesn't constitute a proper agreement (when the child can't properly comprehend what's being bought and sold), and where restoration isn't possible (e.g. the specific item offered by the child is no longer in the possession of the other party), and you may just have to decide "This is one of life's lessons". You cannot in any rational society guarantee a harm-free existence to a child only to instantly obligate them to face reality when they turn 18. Sometimes, the level of potential harm is high enough that the law must say in advance of the act, and in clear descriptive language, that "This is such a high level of harm, virtually guaranteed harm, that we preemptorily prohibit it". That, then, is, in my arrogant opinion, the proper foundation for understanding laws against sex with minors.

With that in place, it makes sense to raise the concrete question of whether having sex in the presence of a child is essentially indistinguishable from having sex with a child. I'd delve into that, muhto mus leat harjehus čállit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it about sex that makes it harmful?
You're initiating force against me by trying to make me get into those sex / metaphysics discussions. Fortunately, I'm an adult and can say "Not gonna go there, definitely not gonna go there in public". Frankly, it's one of those big mysteries of life, as far as the nature of man goes, why anybody really gives a crap. Except, of course, if anyone has ever... no, I really just don't want to go there. I also can't really explain the law of gravity, but that doesn't keep me from recognizing it as a fact, and not just a good idea, but the law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a killer child should be put away for the same reason that we put away a dog that kills a person.
By "we" I assume you mean somebody other than you or me. When a dog kills a person it is put down, not away. Children, in contrast, are not put down. In every country on Earth, and I'm willing to bet a trillion Zimbabwean dollars on that (i.e. a full US buck).
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).
Okay, I've contemplated this and I think it's a credible position. That is, children should not actually be punished (as adults are) by the government for crimes -- by children I don't mean "technical minors", but those youths who lack the mental prerequisites for being full rights- and responsibilities-exercising people. Punishment of the mentally incapable is a perversion of the function of punishment. They should, however, be separated in some way from society, to prevent further damage. Having reviewed how this is played out in the legal system, I think that's you have the right analysis. Thus, children who rape other children or adults (including consensual rape of other children) should be restrained so as to prevent them from re-engaging in their acts, but they should not be punished by the state. OTOH, I do believe that a child who acts badly should be punished by their parents. Dang, I should have quit while you were ahead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's maybe one additional point to add here about the "damage" a kid suffers when viewing porno or live sex acts: To the extent he's indifferent to and ignorant of human sexuality (as when very young), the behavior won't much register with or damage him. To the extent he's actively interested and curious (as when approaching adolescence) he won't suffer much damage either -- just be informed, entertained, pleased, and -- yes -- sexually excited.

As long as the kid is generally informed that adults doing this are not hurting each other, as it may appear to him, then he won't suffer much IMHO. Just educate him -- before and after the accidental or deliberate viewing -- that sex is both intense and normally private. This should resolve maybe 98% of the problems and potential psychological damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still have to show how a child engaging in sexual behavior is damaging and not just because it is against their will, a lot of things done to children are against their will and are not damaging. What is it about sex that makes it harmful?

If you don't know, I'm not going to get into it with you. Not here. I know what happens when things like this are discussed here.

David, man, you crack me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I am surprised so many people think a child seeing sex take place is this awful thing.

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

Sex is natural, alot of humans choose to participate, and it is mostly non-violent and consentual. If it is both non-violent and consentual, what is the harm in children seeing their parents participate?

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 mean, it was the same act that created the child in the first place.

Our culture also tends to view waste-excretion a private act. Should it be illegal for parents to allow their child to catch them on the toilet? I say, absolutely not. In fact, I do not think either is embarrasing or shameful. I see no criminality or immorality in children understanding or freely viewing non-violent, consentual human intercourse.

What is it about sex that poisons a child's mind or inhibits their development?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The harm comes in trivializing sex, making is seem as though it's as unimportant as taking out the garbage or scratching your butt.

So if I take my children to a museum to have a look around, does that trivialize history?

If a child sees their parents having intercourse, how is it trivialized? What special and crucial signifigance has been removed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it about sex that poisons a child's mind or inhibits their development?

I think you're right, that it's not a major issue. I can't imagine it being child abuse. In fact, I recall a story I heard a couple of years ago about Elvis Presley having sex with a woman. A young kid broke in on them,and Elvis said something like, "Close the door kid". The person who told this story was that very kid, and he is from all I can gather a normal healthy adult, who seems to see Elvis as an icon.

I just thought of it as an amusing story, nothing more.

The only thing I'd say is that it's not something I would endorse as a mode of behavior. Sex is a very personal thing.

Still, I guarantee, lots of adults have sex in front of their kids. Lots of adults have little sense of these sorts of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I take my children to a museum to have a look around, does that trivialize history?

If a child sees their parents having intercourse, how is it trivialized? What special and crucial signifigance has been removed?

I will take a stab at answering this.

With most young children, the act of sexual intercourse would be incomprehensible to the child. I will henceforth assume that we are only speaking of such children. If parents engage in sexual congress without any regard to if they are in view of their children, then the child might view sex as merely a meaningless animal instinct as opposed to one of the highest celebrations of life that it is.

Taking children to a museum most likely would not trivialize history so much as help them comprehend it. Unless if it is poorly done, such as the Creation Museum in Kentucky, a museum is meant to properly educate children on science and history. In most cases I can imagine, it would not be a didactic experience for a child to view his parents having intercourse.

The Elvis story Thales provided, although amusing, sounds different because that anecdote entailed a child inadvertantly briefly interrupting two adults having sex, as opposed to watching most of the act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if my child were to see this celebration between myself and their father, would it make it less of a celebration for myself and my partner? I do not think so, particularly because the witness in question is our child. After all, who would be of more value to my partner and I, than our child?

I do not think witnessing parents having intercourse is perverted, shameful, or degrading to anyone. I do not think sex needs to be shrouded in secrect in order to be celebratory. If I was having sex with a man, I do not think the act would be any less meaningful if my child happened to see it. In fact I am curious as to how it could be anything less than beneficial to see parents engaging in such intimacy.

I am not saying I plan on regularly having sex infront of my children, although I do not think it is a negative thing for a child to see it taking place.

It only becomes an 'ew gross' factor when the taboo takes hold. I do not think it needs to be shameful. Guilt, shame, and degradation have no place in association with how highly I revere human intimacy and sexual intercourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if my child were to see this celebration between myself and their father, would it make it less of a celebration for myself and my partner? I do not think so, particularly because the witness in question is our child. After all, who would be of more value to my partner and I, than our child?

I do not think witnessing parents having intercourse is perverted, shameful, or degrading to anyone. I do not think sex needs to be shrouded in secrect in order to be celebratory. If I was having sex with a man, I do not think the act would be any less meaningful if my child happened to see it. In fact I am curious as to how it could be anything less than beneficial to see parents engaging in such intimacy.

That particular sex act would become less of a celebration between yourself and the child's father if either of you were bothered by your child witnessing it.

Needless to say, my comments did not address if this would be perverted, shameful or degrading.

So you have stated that sex needs not be shrouded in secret in order to be celebratory. Do you think that the act of sexual love would be less meaningful if one were to regularly engaged in it infront of her children? What about in front of a group friends and family? What about infront of strangers? I am curious as to where you choose to make a distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

So you have stated that sex needs not be shrouded in secret in order to be celebratory. Do you think that the act of sexual love would be less meaningful if one were to regularly engaged in it infront of her children? What about in front of a group friends and family? What about infront of strangers? I am curious as to where you choose to make a distinction.

You are correct, if the partners were bothered by the presence of their child, the intercourse would not be enjoyable; the discomfort would compromise the sexual intimacy.

I mean to state that I do not think that one must necessarily be bothered.

The distinction is in the act itself, the minds and integrity of the individuals having sex.

I do not think that other humans witnessing my partner and I engaged in sexual intercourse makes it inherently any less celebratory or meaningful.

I do not think that sex mandates a veil of secrecy to be celebratory and meaningful.

It is enjoying making love in the darkest of nights, and then on the brightest of mornings. In the most private room, and then in the most open landscape.

For instance, I think it would be beautiful and uplifting to watch two humans such as Howard Roarke and Dominique have sexual intercourse. If the act is beautiful, why must witnessing it be trashy? Much like watching the beauty of a man discussing his design of a skyscraper, or a woman speaking of her plans to create a great railroad; I think the celebration of life in the manner of creating a child is one of the most meaningful acts humans can engage in, and to witness it is both uplifting and inspiring.

Herein lies the distinction. If the act is trashy, secondhand, and guilty, there is no celebration, and anyone watching would be treated to the same display of human shame as the ones engaged in it.

The distinction is isolating the celebration from degredation. I distinguish between putting on a cheap show for second-hand pleasure, from the engagement in sexual intimacy with my partner in the most meaningful and uplifting manner possible.

I see no inherent immorality in my child witnessing the celebration of life between my partner and I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm completely in agreement with StarGirl as well, although perhaps in different language. There are quite a few things that are supposedly "harmful" or "traumatic" to children, and it's been my personal, in-depth experience that this is a load of cow manure. Your *attitude* about things when your children encounter them is WAY more important than WHAT they've encountered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Elvis story Thales provided, although amusing, sounds different because that anecdote entailed a child inadvertantly briefly interrupting two adults having sex, as opposed to watching most of the act.

You're right, but it has some relevance, because the kid did witness sex between adults.

The distinction is isolating the celebration from degredation. I distinguish between putting on a cheap show for second-hand pleasure, from the engagement in sexual intimacy with my partner in the most meaningful and uplifting manner possible.

Sure, but I would consider that to be a very personal thing. A celebration of life between man and woman in that way can't be shared with everyone. The nature of intimacy is that it's intimate. When intimacy becomes a spectacle, it loses its intimacy.

I see no inherent immorality in my child witnessing the celebration of life between my partner and I.

Nor do I, but I wouldn't want to watch my parents having sex.

And another way to consider it: Did Dominique's nude statue make her intimacy with Roarke less meaningful?

(It does not.)

I don't follow your reasoning here. Is the statue serving the roll of the child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find it ironic that the one defending sex in front of children not being necessarily bad or harmful is herself a minor?

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! :lol: Of course, I certainly do not mean this to be a commentary on Stargirl's ability to comprehend the issues at hand!

That being said, I was limiting my discussion to children who do not have the contextual knowledge to understand what they are witnessing upon observing their parents having sex. She is obviously not in that category.

I do not think that other humans witnessing my partner and I engaged in sexual intercourse makes it inherently any less celebratory or meaningful.

The emphasis is mine. I agree with this statement. Any problems would stem from the circumstances.

I do not think that sex mandates a veil of secrecy to be celebratory and meaningful.

I see a large distinction between a sexual relationship being secret (that is, its existence is not acknowledged and deliberately kept clandestine) and a sexual relationship that is not exercised in the presence of others. A sexual relationship certainly must not be kept secret to be meaningful.

For instance, I think it would be beautiful and uplifting to watch two humans such as Howard Roarke and Dominique have sexual intercourse. If the act is beautiful, why must witnessing it be trashy? ::: SNIP ::: I think the celebration of life in the manner of creating a child is one of the most meaningful acts humans can engage in, and to witness it is both uplifting and inspiring.

Herein lies the distinction. If the act is trashy, secondhand, and guilty, there is no celebration, and anyone watching would be treated to the same display of human shame as the ones engaged in it.

So by "two humans such as Howard Roarke and Dominique" I assume that you mean two humans having sex for some other purpose besides art. Needless to say, human intercourse acted or simulated as a form of romantic art is certainly different from if the purpose is not to create tasteful art.

With regards to sex when it is not a form of art, 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.

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...