Paedophilia and societies others

brianthebard

Foucault said that society needed mental patients to define what was normal. Similarly colonial nations defined themselves in opposition to those they colonised, assigning attributes to Africans and Asians and setting themselves up as these peoples masters. This phenomenon is not new and has been written about by several philosophers, including Freud and Derrida. As time passed people no longer defined themselves in opposition to those with mental illness, but sexually they defined themselves in opposition to homosexuals. Now that this is generally not the case in Western society there seems imo to be a move for people to define themselves (consciously or unconsciously) in opposition to paedophiles. They are the sexual deviants and mental patients of the modern day, all in one. Agree or disagree? If this is true, what does it mean for society, will it continue to hunt down paedophiles and villify them or will there be an attempt to understand and change them, make them useful members of society? Which will win? Thoughts?

sink

I don't think you can apply the same rationale behind colonialism and paedophilia. First of all being 'African' or 'Irish' does not have a direct negative effect on another person, whereas paedophilia most certainly does. In the same way being mentally unstable does not necessarily directly impact others unlike being a paedophile and harmfully molesting children.

I therefore do not approach the question of how to deal with paedophiles from the same philosophical point of view. I do believe treatment is the best answer and trying to understand the condition will give rise to better treatments.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Classic ying-yang behaveior. In order to cover up or feel better about our own embarrasing nuances, we point the finger at someone else and highlight differences and distances. Classic distraction behaveiour.

Paedophila, I believe, be more understood in the future. Not nessecarily tolerated or accepted, but people will stop the witchhunting and scaremongering. Judging by the more serious input on previous threads, the tide has already turned.

brianthebard

sink wrote: »

I don't think you can apply the same rationale behind colonialism and paedophilia. First of all being 'African' or 'Irish' does not have a direct negative effect on another person, whereas paedophilia most certainly does. In the same way being mentally unstable does not necessarily directly impact others unlike being a paedophile and harmfully molesting children.

I therefore do not approach the question of how to deal with paedophiles from the same philosophical point of view. I do believe treatment is the best answer and trying to understand the condition will give rise to better treatments.

That's a good point, however the African and Asian example was really just to show what an Other can be. However there were and still are sexual traits prescribed to Africans, such as larger genitals and libidio, that may or may not be true. Similarly homosexuals were also defined in certain terms, and in opposition to this heterosexuality and European sexual mores were defined. Is it not the case now that people will not consider it permissible to say a sixteen year old is sexually attractive, for fear of being called a paedophile?

Red Hand

If you are going to apply that logic to it, then once paedophila is "accepted", then something like bestiality will be the oddball. That will be replaced by something else and that in turn by something else.

You aren't going to do away with a few hundred thousand (or million) years of evolution that quickly. The human mind is meant to pick out patterns, it is meant to generalise and to pigeonhole.

Playboy

I think the main point to be considered here is that peadophiles are commitng a crime because we in this society believe that anyone below to age of 16 is too young to give consent for sexual intercourse. Unless we change our ideas on the autonmy of the child or teens to make those sort of sexual judgements then practising peadophiles will always be considered as sexual predators and criminals.

Also I think homosexuality is now considered a sexuality rather than a life choice. I dont think we know how to class peadophiles ... is it a mental illness .. a sexual perversion .. a life choice .. or a genetic trait. Whatever the answer there is no easy cultural or societal solution to the problem of peadophiles as we consider the focus of their attraction as vulnerable victims.

Dark_lord_ire

most interesting topic i've seen in a while and one which will have alot of debate. I am of the opinion that a homosexual is what he is that is the same with a paedophile. I've heard lots of points of view on it and resently a online survey in russia in which over 50 % of men (cant recall the exact figure) said they would watch child porn but would not sexually interact with a child. I'm not sure what to make of that myself.

I also think that its wrong that an adult would have any contact with a child in a sexual way but i do think that when it does happen the child is almost made feel worse after like this discusting thing happened to them and naturally they will feel like part of the blame lies with them or if not that they are tainted after the event they might not have had any idea about it being wrong with their innocence but the witch hunt that seems to be the way it is at the moment would reinforce the negitive for them. I think if we had a more open society without the pitchforks and someone who would be a Peado can seek treatment and perhaps would never harm a child in the first place. I just have a thought in my head of someone entering a garda station at the moment saying i'm a paedophile what will i do.

If we consider a paedophile to have a mental illness then we should do all we can to help that person.

Away from that i would be interested in hearing point of view on the age of consent. I mean in ireland i think 16 would be fair as looking at the 16 year olds today they look 20. I dont believe any level headed guy would go under 16 no matter what (remember level headed guy lol) but if a guy meets a girl who is 16 he might be 20 but in the eyes of the law he is committing a serious sexual crime sleeping with her

hexagramer

talk about taking my thoughts right from my head -

the whitchhunting is a problem, i doubt peadofilia was a massive problem thousands of years ago or even just a few hundred, tens even but today if you were even looking weird at a child you would be named and shamed.

i cant imagine myself even talking about this about 5 years ago id be afraid to talk about such lingo, yet here we are today. fantastic thread

personally in my opinion theres a cloud above society that targets pedofilia. a typical one at that. its still wrong dont get me different

i think theres a whole load of different types of pedofilia, theres the people who want to harm kids, all the way to the people that want to just love them and be passionate with them, like woman, some wanna really fkuc em some want to love them. i doubt its a mental illness, after all, iv seen an ape touch up his youngin son in dublin zoo just last week, so if that monkey has a mental illness ill be damned.

great thread!

ChocolateSauce

hexagramer wrote: »

talk about taking my thoughts right from my head -

the whitchhunting is a problem, i doubt peadofilia was a massive problem thousands of years ago or even just a few hundred, tens even but today if you were even looking weird at a child you would be named and shamed.

i cant imagine myself even talking about this about 5 years ago id be afraid to talk about such lingo, yet here we are today. fantastic thread

personally in my opinion theres a cloud above society that targets pedofilia. a typical one at that. its still wrong dont get me different

i think theres a whole load of different types of pedofilia, theres the people who want to harm kids, all the way to the people that want to just love them and be passionate with them, like woman, some wanna really fkuc em some want to love them. i doubt its a mental illness, after all, iv seen an ape touch up his youngin son in dublin zoo just last week, so if that monkey has a mental illness ill be damned.

great thread!

I think the biggest cause of the rise of the hysteria is a greater exposure to the fact that pedophiles are out there. The internet has meant that pedophiles can meet each other more easily, and it also means more are being caught than ever before.

Also, pedophillia has be prevelant throughout human history, from the boy-buggering Greeks to the child-marrying prophet of Islam to the Catholic priests of today, so to say it wasn't a problem long ago isn't really accurate. It just wasn't treated as being wrong, or as wrong as it is today.

On a seperate note, I think that that the majority of "pedophiles" have never done anything wrong. Hear me out before you gasp with incredulity!

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to memeber of their own sex. Dendrophilliacs are attracted to trees. Pedophiles didn't choose to be attracted to children, it was forced apon them by their biology, and I'd wager that the majority of people who find children attractive know it is wrong to do anything to hurt them, and never act on their desires. Since it is such a taboo topic, they probably will never ever tell anyone of their attraction, and instead elect to suffer in isolation rather than inflict suffering on kids. Only morally vacant pedophiles act on their desires.

Any thoughts? And no, I'm not refering to myself! I like older women...:pac:

sink

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Any thoughts? And no, I'm not refering to myself! I like older women...:pac:

Fair point. It's not the attraction that's unethical, it acting upon those feelings. Maybe drugs which inhibit sex drives can be prescribed to dangerous paedophiles in the future.

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

If you are going to apply that logic to it, then once paedophilia is "accepted", then something like bestiality will be the oddball. That will be replaced by something else and that in turn by something else.

You aren't going to do away with a few hundred thousand (or million) years of evolution that quickly. The human mind is meant to pick out patterns, it is meant to generalise and to pigeonhole.

Well paedophilia has occurred throughout history in various societies as already pointed out, and as recently as the Georgian period was accepted, or tolerated at any rate. I personally would have a big problem with statements about what the human mind is *meant* to do in any way, I just think that (a) it is beyond our knowledge at this stage in time, and (b) is a very western way of looking at the mind. But I disgress. Also I disagree on the evolution point, we are talking about taboos which are a construct of society, something I attempted to outline with reference to homosexuality. They can be created, they can be changed. There are reasons behind them, some valid, (incest is taboo-reason; leads to inbred kids, which is bad for society/species) some not (orgies are bad-reason;because repressive Victorian society opposed such flagrant sexuality in response to what they saw as irrepressible libidos in the people they colonised ) The point is that it is possible, at the very least to break down a taboo and consider whether it is valid or not.

Playboy wrote: »

I think the main point to be considered here is that peadophiles are commitng a crime because we in this society believe that anyone below to age of 16 is too young to give consent for sexual intercourse. Unless we change our ideas on the autonmy of the child or teens to make those sort of sexual judgements then practising peadophiles will always be considered as sexual predators and criminals.

Again this is an example of taboo construction, you say that individuals under 16 are too young to consent to sex. In Spain and Denmark this age is much lower. Let us consider if this is a good thing or not; I believe that the age of consent needs to be reduced, because there is a strong, undeniable link between a high age of consent in developed countries, and high rates of teen pregnancy. So clearly Spain and Denmark have made a judgement call as well about who is too young, and have shown that it is not a universal fact.


Finally the link between mental illness, paedophilia and homosexuality is interesting, because not many decades ago homosexuals were considered mentally ill. Obviously that is not an acceptable opinion in society today. Will this change? Why did it change, that homosexuals became mentally sound? I think this is important to discuss because this mental illness argument is held up as another way of sectioning off paedophiles,albeit from some who may feel some sympathy for the poor person who can't help the impulses he may have been born with.

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

Well paedophilia has occurred throughout history in various societies as already pointed out, and as recently as the Georgian period was accepted, or tolerated at any rate. I personally would have a big problem with statements about what the human mind is *meant* to do in any way, I just think that (a) it is beyond our knowledge at this stage in time, and (b) is a very western way of looking at the mind. But I disgress.

Well, when I brought up the evolution and the human mind, I was talking about thinking itself, and how most people seem to think in terms of spectrums or dichotomies. Like, defining themselves to be something by showing what they are not, or the opposite of. Which was what you said in your op....that people will show how normal they are by showing how abnormal mental patients are. People think that way for reason...we have evolved to think like that.

Also I disagree on the evolution point, we are talking about taboos which are a construct of society, something I attempted to outline with reference to homosexuality. They can be created, they can be changed. There are reasons behind them, some valid, (incest is taboo-reason; leads to inbred kids, which is bad for society/species) some not (orgies are bad-reason;because repressive Victorian society opposed such flagrant sexuality in response to what they saw as irrepressible libidos in the people they colonised ) The point is that it is possible, at the very least to break down a taboo and consider whether it is valid or not.

I'm not disagreeing with you...all I'm saying is that defining yourself in opposition to "something" is part of how we think (in my opinion of course). The subject matter or the taboo doesn't matter.

brianthebard

Ok that's a fair point...Do you think perhaps that society finds paedophilia so abhorrent that it may be able to make a permanent taboo of it?

Micky Dolenz

brianthebard wrote: »

. Agree or disagree? If this is true, what does it mean for society, will it continue to hunt down paedophiles and villify them or will there be an attempt to understand and change them, make them useful members of society? Which will win? Thoughts?

You can't change a paedophile, just like you can't change a hetrosexual or homosexual. It's part of who they are. They find children sexually attractive and therefore remain a constant threat to children. Children are innocent and trusting, this should not be stolen from them because someone has a fantasy. However about homosexuality being "not normal" it does involve adults who choose their partners etc. A child has no choice.

People who prey on the weak and defenseless should always be hunted down.

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok that's a fair point...Do you think perhaps that society finds paedophilia so abhorrent that it may be able to make a permanent taboo of it?

I think that paedophiles are, for the most part, born that way and are attracted to children, same as heterosexuals are attracted to mature members of the opposite sex and homosexuals to their own sex. (Not that I think it's any way "normal", myself, or acceptable. I view them the same way as I view psychopaths.)

I think that in time, if this society doesn't collapse or "revert", it will be recognised as a sexuality, albeit one that a person can never hope to consummate, and a huge stigma will still be attached to it. Plus, this society will not tolerate a child being a paedophile's "partner". It will be one of the odder sexualities, and maybe if boards.ie is still around, someone will be petitioning in Feedback for a Paedophile board. (Well, there is the Mustard forum already:))

I can't say that I would be happy with that, far from it, but that's what I think will happen.

Shinji Ikari

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I think that paedophiles are, for the most part, born that way and are attracted to children, same as heterosexuals are attracted to mature members of the opposite sex and homosexuals to their own sex. (Not that I think it's any way "normal", myself, or acceptable. I view them the same way as I view psychopaths.)

I think that in time, if this society doesn't collapse or "revert", it will be recognised as a sexuality, albeit one that a person can never hope to consummate, and a huge stigma will still be attached to it. Plus, this society will not tolerate a child being a paedophile's "partner". It will be one of the odder sexualities, and maybe if boards.ie is still around, someone will be petitioning in Feedback for a Paedophile board. (Well, there is the Mustard forum already:))

I can't say that I would be happy with that, far from it, but that's what I think will happen.

I agree. We're all moral relativists. In many,if not most, societies bi-sexuality was considered the norm, as was pedastry. Due to the rise of the monistic religions homosexuality was considered deviant and a form of mental illness. Its interesting to note that pedastry was still somewhat accepted. Now we have a new moral zeitgeist. Homosexuality and bi-sexuality is considered a natural inclination. Paedophillia is considered a mental illness by some and abhorrent by virtually all(Which fair due to the essentially non-consensual nature of the act is immoral.) Even pedastry (being attacted to those in their mid teens) has become fairly taboo. I think the reason many paedophiles violently rape children is akin to the reason men rape women;its more about power and control than sex.

I dare say most paedophiles don't offend and have a sense of morality. Sadly, if they do breach the law and molest a child the only remedy is chemical castration.

Kama

I have an odd view on the paedophile thing. Firstly, I don't think the standard portrayal is accurate, and moreso I think it's conveniently inaccurate. Secondly, the definition of 'child' is problematic.

The popular image of a paedophile is a lone sexual predator snatching kids from playgrounds, whereas the likely majority of incidents are intra-familial sexual abuse. The first is a convenient target, a perfect 'Other' to demonise, whereas sexual abuse tends to require proximity and access, and a generaly high level of trust. The roaming paedo is a much better hate figure than Uncle Johnny.

Some of the issue, to my mind, is to do with the construction of childhood as a sanctity zone of innocence. This doesn't have that long a history, and tends to come with advanced capitalist systems where this luxury is affordable and a prolonged dependency period is the norm, and the socially accepted age of reproduction moves upwards.

There's a definite tension between this and the lowering of the onset of puberty. Sexualization of children, usually seen as a media construction, has a definite biological element, with disputed causality (hormone milk? we don't know) This has obvious implications for the age of consent, and the definition of 'child'. If an 8 year old has biological sexual development, and hormonal urges on that basis, are we still talking about the same thing? Biology is a stronger force than law, imo, and unsurprisingly its a thorny issue. The evidenced-based teen pregnancy figures are interesting though...

gabigeist

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I think that paedophiles are, for the most part, born that way and are attracted to children, same as heterosexuals are attracted to mature members of the opposite sex and homosexuals to their own sex.

The bit in bold just got me thinking. I remember being attracted to girls my age all throughout childhood. At the time, you wouldn't know it but thinking back, it was definitely sexual attraction (enacted through kiss-chasing, that sort of thing). Later at about the age of 18, I remember thinking that I could never get married as older women were just so gross whilst 18 year old girls were just so perfect. As a 30 year old, I find myself about to happily marry a 30 year old whilst 18 year old girls now seem a bit skinny and repulsive to me. My point is this...

1) Normal heterosexual men find young girls attractive at some stage in their life.
2) Maybe paedos are normal heterosexual/homosexual men whose sexual tastes simply got stuck at some early age and didn't develop as they got older.

Kama

Yeh, rather than the 'they are what they are' essentialist line on paedophilia, you can look on it as acquired, basically a retardation of social-sexual development, where you remain at an earlier point and don't move on.

You could also go with Sartre's views on homosexuality; inclinations aren't the issue, actions are. Which has the benefit of being an operational statement, but elides the more internal side that sexual identity tends to be so very bound up with.

gabigeist

Kama wrote: »

You could also go with Sartre's views on homosexuality; inclinations aren't the issue, actions are. Which has the benefit of being an operational statement, but elides the more internal side that sexual identity tends to be so very bound up with.

Good point. "I do, therefore I am" versus " I think, therefore I am." Very useful when defining paedophiles. I.e. is it only someone who actually fiddles with kids or would you also include those who only think about it?
I'd automatically include both but then I realise that if we are classified based on our thoughts then the thought police would have locked me up long ago:eek:

Anyway back to original post, I'm guessing that Paedophilia will become less stigmatised but never fully and that we'll find some other sexual 'weirdos' to identify ourselves by. In wild-guess-like-fashion, I'll opt for abstainers to be ostracised (I think in Brave New World this was the case). Maybe we could have a poll on who'll be the next unacceptables.

brianthebard

gabigeist wrote: »

The bit in bold just got me thinking. I remember being attracted to girls my age all throughout childhood. At the time, you wouldn't know it but thinking back, it was definitely sexual attraction (enacted through kiss-chasing, that sort of thing). Later at about the age of 18, I remember thinking that I could never get married as older women were just so gross whilst 18 year old girls were just so perfect. As a 30 year old, I find myself about to happily marry a 30 year old whilst 18 year old girls now seem a bit skinny and repulsive to me. My point is this...

1) Normal heterosexual men find young girls attractive at some stage in their life.
2) Maybe paedos are normal heterosexual/homosexual men whose sexual tastes simply got stuck at some early age and didn't develop as they got older.

Interesting posts, and some excellent points by Kama, can't really fault you. I'd like to sake you up on your two themes though gabi;

1-Not to be glib but basing your conclusion solely on your own personal experience isn't a very strong argument. Personally I find both young and old women attractive, for different reasons I would say. I can't see myself not being attracted to younger women, just because I get older. Biology is a funny thing, and often used to justify sexual preferences, but I think the only definitive aspect of biology that can be applied to attractiveness if that people want to get their end away as often as possible. A lot of the time, this is more important than who the other person involved is.

2-This kind of goes against what Kama was saying, about paedophiles more often being a relative or a trusted member of the community, such as a priest. Are these people abusing the child or abusing the trust? I'm not saying he's right, but it would often be the case, probably a lot more than the classic predatory image people have.

gabigeist

Hypotethical excercise here. These would roughly equate to my current opinions on paedophilia. I realise that each point can be refuted but I am looking to see what point number 5 would be if these held true? I.e what is the logical next step?

1) Society has demonised paedophilia with a predatory image as a means of defining ourselves as normal (be it hetero or homo)
2) As with all previous demonisations, it will likely pass as we come to understand them better (and something else will be demonised).
3) Part of this understanding will be the realisation that the 'child snatcher' is in fact a tiny minority within paedophilia (and probably as similarly abhorred as a rapist in the normal community).
4) The true size of the paedophilia community will be much larger than expected as countless 'non-practicers' now come to light.
5)

If I can't find a viable 5th step then I'll revisit the first 4 points. Thanks!

Kama

One way to look at it generally is within a deviance framework. Think of concentric circles, norm is centre, margins are weird. Weird tends to move inward, whether we are talking about social ideology (hippies used be a weird) or sex (S and M used not be found on high streets).

This doesn't necessarily mean paedophilia will be normalised; we generally seem to have a less liberal view of sex with children and paedophilia than at prior times, and generally sexual abuse is less acceptable. 'Covert' acceptability, with say Catholic priests, was apparently significantly higher than it is now.

One route is rather than the age issue, is to split by whether the relationship is abusive; doubtless this is what NAMBLA would say too (I'm a special friend to that child, its not abuse). Think initiatory sex anthropologically. Again, huge problems to do with perception; I have known quite a few people 'blissfully' in highly abusive relationships, while adults...


As a contra-PoMo relativist note, just because we demonise something doesn't make it 'right' because its oppressed or an object of Foucauldian control. And contra myself, just because someone is biologically ready for sex doesn't make it a good idea; as we all know from well-maintained football fields, [crude joke ahead] [

sometimes the grass needs a little more time to grow before you play

brianthebard

gabigeist wrote: »

Hypotethical excercise here. These would roughly equate to my current opinions on paedophilia. I realise that each point can be refuted but I am looking to see what point number 5 would be if these held true? I.e what is the logical next step?

1) Society has demonised paedophilia with a predatory image as a means of defining ourselves as normal (be it hetero or homo)

True

2) As with all previous demonisations, it will likely pass as we come to understand them better (and something else will be demonised).

Untrue, most sexual demonisations remain part of society, but bubble underneath. Some like homosexuality are supposedly accepted, but there is still large elements of resistance, down to whether a couple feel they can hold hands or not in public, as well as more extreme examples. Also, it has been pointed out earlier that if anything paedophilia was more acceptable, and has become demonised now.

3) Part of this understanding will be the realisation that the 'child snatcher' is in fact a tiny minority within paedophilia (and probably as similarly abhorred as a rapist in the normal community).

While true, often it is the irrational fear that is the strongest- which are people more afraid of, child snatchers/rapists, or being run down by a car? Which should they fear more?

4) The true size of the paedophilia community will be much larger than expected as countless 'non-practicers' now come to light.

You mean once its acceptable more people will take it up? Hard to say, often an argument against legalising drugs. There may be a certain amount who would. Since so little is known about paedophiles to begin with, it can't really be proven or disproven.

5)

If I can't find a viable 5th step then I'll revisit the first 4 points. Thanks!

well, it could go a few ways, be allowed under certain conditions-eg the age of consent is lowered (substantially here, another few years in other countries), it could turn out that there is actually a large community as you suggested, and they lobby for rights? It could be demonised for another century or more. It could become understood and considered as a chemical imbalance in certain people, and be medically treated. Society could get very weird and allow sex tourism, or sex with orphans, or well something else suitably dystopian. I think we can agree something of that nature is the most unlikely outcome.

Kama

Society could get very weird and allow sex tourism, or sex with orphans, or well something else suitably dystopian. I think we can agree something of that nature is the most unlikely outcome.

I'm assuming you mean in openly acceptable social mores on a a general scale, rather than practically. All of the above occur already, with sex tourism to countries with lower age of consent, and lower barriers to prevent abuse or greater tolerance (especially if you pay enough).

raah!

I bet ye're all sitting here thinking "what does dostoyevsky think about this?". Well no worries fellows, I just read a passage in Bobok on this very topic! and naturally my thoughts went to ye. Here's what he says: (disclaimer: this has little philosophical value)

I remember a Spanish witticism at the time the French built their first mad house, 250 years ago : 'They have shut up all their fools in a special building, in order to make us believe they are wise themselves.' That's right enough : shutting somebody else up in a lunatic asylum doesn't prove your own sanity. 'K.'s gone mad, that means we're sane.' No, it doesn't mean that yet

So at least we see that questions like this have been in the public spectrum over 400 years ago. And perhaps that spanish witticism suggests even that not everywhere people feel the same about it....

Well, that's nothing of value really, but it's a grand bit of Dostoyevsky at least. That's from his short story 'Bobok' by the beans.

brianthebard

Kama wrote: »

I'm assuming you mean in openly acceptable social mores on a a general scale, rather than practically. All of the above occur already, with sex tourism to countries with lower age of consent, and lower barriers to prevent abuse or greater tolerance (especially if you pay enough).

Yeah I meant that it would become something people of "a certain disposition" do, and while not generally thought of as good it wouldn't be stopped either.

Interesting extract raah! might check that essay out soon if I get a chance.

ChocolateSauce

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

I agree. We're all moral relativists. In many,if not most, societies bi-sexuality was considered the norm, as was pedastry. Due to the rise of the monistic religions homosexuality was considered deviant and a form of mental illness. Its interesting to note that pedastry was still somewhat accepted. Now we have a new moral zeitgeist. Homosexuality and bi-sexuality is considered a natural inclination. Paedophillia is considered a mental illness by some and abhorrent by virtually all(Which fair due to the essentially non-consensual nature of the act is immoral.) Even pedastry (being attacted to those in their mid teens) has become fairly taboo. I think the reason many paedophiles violently rape children is akin to the reason men rape women;its more about power and control than sex.

Relative morals is no excuse, in my opinion. We are today a more moral society than we were 2000 years ago, or even 20 years ago. It isn't that it wasn't wrong to rape children in the past, or that it used to be wrong to be gay- it was always wrong to rape children and it was never wrong to be gay. Today we are more moral than our ancestors. We are more intelligent, better educated and less barbaric. Looking back, we can see that what was once considered moral or acceptable was clearly not; just nobody noticed back then, or they didn't care.

Daithi McGee

brianthebard wrote: »

Snip>> They are the sexual deviants and mental patients of the modern day, all in one. Agree or disagree? If this is true, what does it mean for society, will it continue to hunt down paedophiles and villify them or will there be an attempt to understand and change them, make them useful members of society? Which will win? Thoughts?

I thought most of them or the majority were useful members of society? Why do you think that they are not?

/Philosophersises: Your thought process on this is interesting.

brianthebard

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Relative morals is no excuse, in my opinion. We are today a more moral society than we were 2000 years ago, or even 20 years ago. It isn't that it wasn't wrong to rape children in the past, or that it used to be wrong to be gay- it was always wrong to rape children and it was never wrong to be gay. Today we are more moral than our ancestors. We are more intelligent, better educated and less barbaric. Looking back, we can see that what was once considered moral or acceptable was clearly not; just nobody noticed back then, or they didn't care.

Absolute morals are no argument in my opinion. I think its wrong to suggest were are any more or less moral than people of the past.

Daithi McGee wrote: »

I thought most of them or the majority were useful members of society? Why do you think that they are not?

/Philosophersises: Your thought process on this is interesting.

Who is them that you are referring to?

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

Absolute morals are no argument in my opinion. I think its wrong to suggest were are any more or less moral than people of the past.

So you think you don't know better than people who lived 500 years ago?

brianthebard

In what sense? In my ability to live in their era? Their ability to live in mine? You seriously think you export morals through time/nation/cultures? You can attempt to impose morals, as most cultures do, but that's about it.

ChocolateSauce

I think I can look back on something that was and decide whether it was moral or not. I know you must take it in context of society at that time, but there is nothing to stop me from saying the society was wrong.

It was acceptable to burn witches long ago, today in some Muslim lands it is ok to execute them for being homosexuals. These are wicked acts not because they are wicked today, but because they are absolutely wicked, always have been and always will be. No amount of culture excuses it. If the culture says it is ok, then that culture is immoral and should stop. Thankfully, that has happened already in our society, for the most part.

brianthebard

What puts you above culture that you get to decide who is immoral and who isn't? Isn't it immoral to denigrate other peoples cultures? You've gone way off the theme of this debate anyways, want to drag it back? If not there are already threads on whether morals are absolute or relative, I suggest you contribute to them instead.

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

What puts you above culture that you get to decide who is immoral and who isn't? Isn't it immoral to denigrate other peoples cultures? You've gone way off the theme of this debate anyways, want to drag it back? If not there are already threads on whether morals are absolute or relative, I suggest you contribute to them instead.

My incredible powers of rational deduction coupled with my humanity allows me to decide who is immoral and who isn't. There's nothing immoral about pointing out the faults of others. Quite the opposite, in fact. Ignoring and accepting diabolical practices is immoral.

Like pedophillia. Many extreme Muslims in modern countries think it is ok to marry children under the age of 14 off to much older men. These children are in total submission to their male superiors and do not have a say in it. This is an affront to their human rights, and most Muslim countries have laws against this. However, even the ones that do often don't enforce them (Saudi Arabia comes to mind).

Now I can accept some deviation on the age of consent, for example in Spain it is 13. I'd prefer 15. But in Spain, it can be safely assumed that a 13 year old girl hasn't been raised to be a mysigonist of the highest order, and it can also be assumed that her family isn't going to marry her to a much older man without her consent.

brianthebard

Well if you accept some deviation then you must accept that the age of consent is just a construct open to interpretation and cultural change. Clearly you believe in absolute morals, which I think is ridiculous but will say no more about it on this thread.

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

Well if you accept some deviation then you must accept that the age of consent is just a construct open to interpretation and cultural change. Clearly you believe in absolute morals, which I think is ridiculous but will say no more about it on this thread.

Fair enough, I'll finish up then. Age of consent...ask a 13 year old is she ready for sex. She'll probably say no. Then ask an 8 year old. She'll probably be confused.

Then try asking is she ready for an adult husband. A variation of age of consent has limits, and I base those limits on how psycologically ready a child is for sexual relations. By your logic, you could have a 3 year old ready for sex if it was the societal norm.

Besides, my post wasn't about the fine points of age of consent, it was about forced marriage.

Kama

I know you must take it in context of society at that time, but there is nothing to stop me from saying the society was wrong.

Agree, in general. You can approach and analyse contextually, without necessarily taking a 'flat' relativism; to say that someone cannot make a moral judgement because of historical variation and social construction to my mind oversteps the line, and is a bit...ehm...prissy. It's a doublebind anyway; by advocating a full relativism, you tend to privilege a (moral) system of non-judgement that is ironically quite absolutist in tendency; 'there can be no judgement, all cultures etc are different'. Equally, a moralist position which refuses to contextualise itself is a fairly blind thing.

Stating that it was the cultural norm doesn't mean 2c as to its 'rightness' or 'morality', puttng right and moral as 'what's generally accepted' solves exactly nothing, and it also often reifies the culture as static rather than dynamic and contested. There are lots of 'norms', both in our culture and others, that I don't have to agree with, and people disagreeing with 'norms' is a huge source of social progress, which though a highly unfashionable term I happen to believe in, of times. Partially due to the alternative.


Bah, derailing...I don't think anyone would argue that age of consent is an absolute. Chocolate, by your argument, if a 3 year old, due to a freak biological maturation process and precocious nature was psychologically and physically developed, would it be ok?

I'm harking back here slightly to the apparent fact that the age of biological maturation is shifting downward, and its effects on our system. There's also a unpicking of legitimate sex from age to bio-psychological development, curious where that ends up.

ChocolateSauce

Kama wrote: »

Bah, derailing...I don't think anyone would argue that age of consent is an absolute. Chocolate, by your argument, if a 3 year old, due to a freak biological maturation process and precocious nature was psychologically and physically developed, would it be ok?

Interesting question. Hypothetically, yes, since those are the two criteria generally used. If the person looked adult, and they were in fact mentally mature enough, I can't see why not. If it did happen though I don't think society would be ready for it. I'm open to suggestions as to why it mightn't be ok though. The reason pedophillia is wrong is because it harms people because they are not physically or mentally equipped to deal with it.

I certainly wouldn't argue for an absoulte definition for age on consent; people are ready at different times. The legal age is there to protect the unready while compromising to allow the ready.

Kama

Kama is amused that there's an ad displayed for a Sex Offenders Registry at the bottom of the page...Anyone for internet-Panopticism?

brianthebard

Kama wrote: »

Kama is amused that there's an ad displayed for a Sex Offenders Registry at the bottom of the page...Anyone for internet-Panopticism?

I find an African date if I want....