|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Roger made this statement in the child pornography topic.
What exactly makes a paedophile? And which ones are lowly? Or are they all?
Are we talking about anyone that experiences sexual attraction to anyone else under the age of consent? People that watch child porn? People that have sex with children? What do we mean by children? Anyone under 18? 16? 12?
Pederasty, including pederasty of the sexual kind is a tradition that had existed amongst human cultures of all kinds up until the influence of Judeo-Christian morality. Are we saying Alexander the Great was actually Alexander the Lowly?
I personally think using terms like "lowly paedophiles" is not constructive. We don't even know who it is targeting. And it scares people away from attraction (which can be natural and uncontrollable) and it scares people away from affection (which is healthy and nurturing). It scares people away from art and the appreciation of beauty.
Paedophilia becomes paedophobia. Quite literally a fear of children.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should aplogise for using the term Lowly. I used that because certain people view pedophiles as just that. I am aware that there are grown men who take on boys to raise and care for. And Yes as in the article that I posted here same age relationships are a recent thing. In the past homosexual men took boys as their partner. this has always been with the childs consent.
I have no problem with pedophiles except where rape and force are involved.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I'm sure a lot of paedophiles are lowly. Especially criminal paedophiles.
But if we define paedophilia purely as a paraphilia- that is a sexual disorder or deviation from the norm, then it is unfair to tar people that struggle with paedophilic feelings with the same brush as those that commit crimes.
I also think that the demonisation and criminalisation of all sexual activity with children drives paedophilia underground and has potentially driven it more underground and made it even more of a violent and brutal act.
In the Greek times a man favouring children would discuss the matter with the child and their parents and if all parties agree they would enter into a pederastic relationship. Nowadays that could never happen, so instead a paedophile engages in kidnapping, rape or grooming behind parents' backs to fulfil themselves sexually.
I think it's a sad reality that the more crimes we have the more criminals we create.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
The problem is mostly society's view rather than any actual harm done.
Ok, now let's wait for the screams or moral outrage to die down, then continue.
There is a real issue with sexual acts with children who truly have no understanding of what is proposed or delivered. There has to be an "age of enlightenment" where the child is aware of the physical realities and intellectual realities. This is where the concept of informed consent comes in.
There is a real issue where the act itself is physically damaging, whether the child appeared to give informed consent or not.
There is a real issue when the relationship is a power trip instead of one of mutual respect, especially with apparent informed consent.
Where consent is not given freely and in an informed manner then this is a real assault on the child and must be treated as such
Society places a huge burden on the child, even one where consent is informed. By demonising the older party the child is made to be a victim, even if their consent was real and informed. Victims suffer huge pangs of guilt related to their status as victims. They feel responsible for the adult's incarceration, for example.
I see no objective way of judging the capability of a child to give informed consent. Some 16 year olds in the UK are wholly incapable of understanding how many beans make five, let alone understanding that sex is quite important and that they can make decisions to say yes or no. This means that I can see clearly why the legislators have set an age of consent. I disagree with the rigid way it has been done and support a sliding scale, but I do understand and support an age scheme because there is no better way.
If one could determine that consent was informed and the child was not about to be harmed (harmed from the child's perspective, not from society's perspective), then I can see nothing at all wrong with disposing of the age of consent altogether. However any attempt to achieve that would both attract the most highly unsavoury types to support it, and be doomed to failure because of the media anyway.
For good or ill we are stuck with the concept of age related consent.
[Updated on: Thu, 30 October 2008 08:50]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Is there "no better way"?
Is there a law that states a person is "too mentally disabled" to have sex? Not as far as I know, no.... Some schizophrenics can give consent freely, some cannot. Each case is judged individually in the case of a mentally disabled person. Consent is totally subjective.
Why can't it be the same for age? I totally think subjectivity IS the best way to handle this. The laws themselves may not be subjective- but decisions on whether a law was broken or not are subjective. Let precedence decide, let juries decide. I trust them to be more even-handed than a blanket ban on all sexual conduct for people under 18/16/13 or whatever the relevant age may be.
What caused age of consent laws to arise in the first place? Was the previous definition of rape and informed consent really that problematic that abusers were getting off free?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Would you put a child through discussing his or her sexual desires and relationship needs with a jury?
Society has made sex embarrassing!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
It's an unfortunate fact that victims often have to go through crap, despite having done nothing wrong.
When I was mugged, I had to sit in the police station for an hour and give a boring statement rather than go home to Ryan and get snuggles.
Charges were never brought (that I know of) but should they have been, I would have needed to have filled out a victim impact statement and possibly would have been required to relive the event by testifying in court.
I only ever did get about $30 of my $50 back, too...
The fact is a victim of a crime or defense witness has to go through crap. They have to reveal more of themselves or more of the defendant than most would ever want.
Of course often if the child refuses to take the stand then it will be much harder for a prosecution to make the case. It will be especially hard if the child's parents are complicit, too. In fact, in New Zealand this was almost codified into law, although as it stands lax enforcement of the law is usually pursued:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Australia_and_Oceania#New_Zealand
"Although age of consent laws in New Zealand (as with most other western countries) are currently severe, consensual relationships between adults and young teens are usually not prosecuted unless the parent or child complain about it."
This does make it harder for adult/child gay couples, however... The parents disapproval of the relationship being a same-sex one is justification for them to take the case to the police.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Well, given I'm prone to carrying things through to their logical conclusions to try and assess their validity it brings me to this side branch of topic.
Should be abolish age of consent laws and allow juries, judges, etc to decide if consent was involved should the burden of proof lie with the prosecution to prove there was no consent, or should the burden of proof lie on the defense to prove there was consent?
I guess I could envision keeping the age of consent laws with a proviso that "it is a defense to prove that the child involved gave informed consent". That was consent is not implicit in the act and must be proven.
I like this path. I think it balances safety and freedom....
Usually the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, but I think it is hard to prove a lack of consent beyond all reasonable doubt. I think actual abusers would be let off too often.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Consent must be an active thing. It cannot be implied, for implied consent is no consent at all.
"If you don't say no, I am going to have sex with you in every way that I choose," is not valid. One opts in to sex, one does not opt out. But, to opt, one must be clear on precisely what one opts for.
Anything else you frame must include active and informed consent as a basis.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I agree entirely, I know there is no implied consent in an act. Silence does not mean "yes". A no midway through sex is just as valid as a no at the start.
But what I mean is: the burden of proof lies on the prosecution in rape cases to prove there was not consent. This is usually because a victim expresses that there was not consent. But in say a rape/ murder where the victim is dead how is consent proven? Surely it is the defense that has to prove there was no consent rather than the defense having to establish if consent was present.
I think in adult cases consent IS implicit unless proven otherwise by the prosecution. I think it would be fair to say that in cases with children the burden of proof lies on the defense. It is a little "guilty unless proven innocent" but it still allows for a defence whereas current laws criminalise regardless of consent.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A while back I heard that in the Neatherlands they were going to make the age of consent 12 years old. There was another bill (law) behind that one that would remove the age of consent entirely. I never heard if either one passed.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Who would propose such a bill?
In Australia anyone even suggesting such a thing would be tarred a paedophile... I've always wondered how age of consent laws have been lowered....
In my proposal I'd be happy with the age of consent as it stands in Victoria at 16. However I would add the clause "it is defense if the younger person is shown to have been capable of giving informed consent".
Cases where consent is obvious would not even need to go to trial (between 2 teens or say a 22 year old and 15 year old in a relationship). But where there was a legitimate question about consent the case could go to trial, but informed consent would be a legitimate defence.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In many societys the age of 12 is considered the time a boy or girl becomes a woman or man. take for instance the Hebrew Bar Mitzvah. The boy stands up and announces that he is a man. In the 18 hundreds here in the US if you were a boy and not married by the time you were 14 there was something wrong with you. A girl of 16 was an old maid. Remember the life expectancy at that time was around 45 years.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that a pre-pubertal child can in any meaningful sense give "informed consent".
The adult experience of the drive to completion and orgasm is so far removed from anything likely to be within the child's experience (I gather from friends that this is true even for children who did experience pre-pubertal "dry orgasms", something I never did). And I do rather doubt that kids have acquired the necessary empathetic and synthetic mental toolkits to be able to get any kind of external understanding.
This isn't to deny the sexuality of children, in any way. But it's a *very* different thing from adult sexuality: a fact often overlooked or denied. At least, for me the difference between "child" and "adult" sexuality was very marked ... and I rather gather than this has been the case for my 12-y.o neice and 14 y.o. nephew, both of whom hit puberty last year, and with whom I recently had a very interesting discussion about age-discrepant relationships (at their instigation - I don't quiz my siblings offspring about their sex lives uninvited!).
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
As a sample of one, I would say that I had no sexuality at all before puberty, but enjoyed dry orgasms and had wanking in my list of hobbies. I think I started at nearly 11. Always solo.
It was a case of start to wank and reach orgasm. I think it took a whole 20 seconds, usually. The whole process was mechanical pleasure, not intellectual or emotional at all (in that it was linked to the act, not to another person). It also helped me to get to sleep.
Thus my sample of one agrees that my sexuality at that age was WAY different from my sexuality at 13 where emotion joined in and love (or certainly lust) turned up unannounced and unwanted.
Before that magic "age of emotional involvement" I might have agreed to someone older "showing me a better way to wank" I suppose. After it I would not have at all unless I desired them as a person.
To me your post "suddenly" explains this. And I am thus in agreement with you over consent issues as they relate to age
[Updated on: Fri, 31 October 2008 00:18]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger wrote:
In many societys the age of 12 is considered the time a boy or girl becomes a woman or man. take for instance the Hebrew Bar Mitzvah. The boy stands up and announces that he is a man....
This is slightly misleading. The age of Bar-Mitzvah has not always been fixed. Today it is celebrated when a boy reaches the age of 13. The occasion marks the boy's passage from childhood to puberty. This is indicated by the fact that in much earlier times the change of status was indicated by the boy producing "at least two hairs" in what is euphemistically referred to by the sages as "the lower beard". It is now assumed that all boys have done so if they have reached the age of 13. (For that reason girls celebrate their Bat-Mitzvah upon reaching the age of 12.)
Therefore, the Bar-Mitzvah ceremony does not mark the onset of adulthood but the end of childhood. From the religious point of view, from this age onwards the boy is responsible for his actions (until then his parents were responsible for his actions).
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR I can only go by what I know from experience. I have a dear friend who is married and has four boys. I have been to 3 Bar Mitvah's. At each of the Bar Mitzvah the boy turned 12. Altho I do not speak Hebrew I know that on each occasion the boy makes a speach and one of the first things he says is "Today I become a man". Im sure it is as you say, but it must vary from place to place. I do know that at one time boys began families as early as possible. If your life expectancy is only 40 years then you must get busy as soon as possible.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I totally agree actually, that they are very different beasts.
I saw it when I taught in Japan. The difference between a horny 13 year old asking questions about sex, compared to a curious 10 year old asking questions.
Informed consent, though? A preteen can unlikely give informed consent to intercourse...
But I can still think of adult/ preteen contact that I don't believe is immoral or should be prosecuted.
I'm not sure entirely what I think about preteens, though. It's a very different subject. I just don't want children to feel like sex is bad or wrong. I want adults to be able to discuss sex openly and honestly. I think a child touching an adult's penis (or boobs) shouldn't be discouraged but rather be utilised as a teaching experience....
I don't think the playground is the best place for children to learn. Yet the playground is usually the educator because the facts of the matter, even after substantial sex-ed courses are left out. The playground is the only place to get "hands on" learning.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I suppose JFR probably has a heads up on this since he lives in Israel.
Sounds interesting "I have a pair of pubes. I am no longer a kid!" followed by "oops, I pulled on out by accident!"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
There is a fine line between encouraging a healthy attitude to sex and encouraging acts which border on challenging.
If an adult and a child share nudity, showers or baths, not unusual except in puritan USA, and if a hand goes onto an adult body part, male or female then the curiosity needs to be answered openly and honestly, and, and this is vital, in detail commensurate with the child's actual intellect and directly relevant to the question.
Equally the child needs also to learn that society does not expect people to grasp other people's genitals, and to learn it in a way that is not embarrassing.
The answer to "Uncle, what is an orgasm?" is not, however, "Here, let me show you" whoever's penis (etc) is the organ of demonstration. The answer is a competent and clear description.
I'm wholly in favour of open attitudes to sex. I brought my son up this way. He and I can discuss any aspect of sex without hangups or embarrassing silences. We had no needs to have the explanations or discussions in Braille, though.
And my answer to "Will you show me semen (etc)?" would have been "That is something I prefer to do in private. I'll describe it to you and you can find out for yourself when you are ready."
[Updated on: Sun, 02 November 2008 19:47]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that pretty much describes my atitude, too, timmy.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I'm not at all interested in engaging with a preteen sexually and likely never would. You're right that learning what is appropriate sexually is important to learn, too.
But should an adult choose to engage sexually in response to a preteen's curiosity, I don't think it should be classified as immoral or illegal if the preteen's curiosity is satiated and if no-one was harmed.
It isn't something that I'd be interested in at all. I just think logically it is "okay", even if, as you have said in the past it is not needed. It's definitely not needed. But plenty of legal actions aren't needed and are excessive.
I guess most adults would question the merits of deliberately introducing a preteen to pornography, too. I know I would. But should introducing pornography to an 8 year old be illegal?
Perhaps in this case it is better to err on the side of caution... But I don't see why. Either someone was harmed or they were not. What danger is there to err away from? Changing the law isn't going to make adults everywhere start going around fondling and getting fondled by young children. It will just excuse some stupid nonharmful actions that an adult may commit. And hopefully it will stop people from being too scared to hug a child for fear of child molestation charge being laid against them....
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Should something inappropriate be considered immoral?
Should something immoral be made illegal?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Saben, I agree.
[But I think satisfied would be a better word than satiated.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
> But should an adult choose to engage sexually in response to a preteen's curiosity, I don't think it should be classified as immoral or illegal if the preteen's curiosity is satiated and if no-one was harmed.
I think such behaviour is highly likely to be inappropriate for the child's age, needs or intellectual development. I appreciate the spirit and the framework you have stated, but disagree with you.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree Timmy. A childs couriosity can be satisfied in other ways that are not as inappropriate as actually seeing and touching a mans penis. I have talked to some very interesting men who live in Europe. Whats interesting is that they have all taken boys into their homes and are raising them. Wheather sex is involved I dont know, all I know is that the boys would have been dead or grown to be ignorant and poor if the men hadnt taken them in. to my knowledge these men have never taken pics of the boys and plastered them all over the internet. IM really torn between the feeling that these boys are in an immoral relationship or that they are paying a cheap price to get a chance in the world. I get the distinct impression that the boys are loved very much and that the men would never allow harm to come to them. The parents and the society where these boys are works against the boys even surviving to adult hood. I just wonder where you draw the line.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
> Should something inappropriate be considered immoral?
>
> Should something immoral be made illegal?
One should use mature judgement. An inappropriate thing is not necessarily immoral nor illegal. A fart in church is inappropriate, especially if loud. It is neither immoral nor illegal.
With a child and sexual matters one must use a very clear judgement. A child is interested in knowledge, and it is right to give that knowledge.
If a child sees, for example, an adult become erect, something perfectly possible in a non sexual situation, it is valid if the child asks to explain what has been seen. This is an appropriate behaviour.
What is not appropriate is to answer the question by waving an erection under the child's nose, even if the intent is not sexual.
Morality is not the same as appropriateness. Morality is judged by the society we live in. Some morality is inappropriate. In some African places female circumcision is moral. In a civilised nation it is not appropriate. Other examples can be found in each direction, I'm sure.
In some nations the age of consent is very low. They have a different view from (eg) the UK or USA. That's fine. For them the lower age is moral and appropriate. We all have to live where we live and handle these realities there.
Because the UK absolutely does not expect demonstrations to children I choose to work with description and diagrams. I have no difficulty in showing body parts to anyone, but I decide for myself what I feel is appropriate.
I'll give you an example, though it was actually impossible to show anything.
In 1999 or so I had to have major penile surgery to remove BXO. This was deeply unpleasant and resulted in my being circumcised for the second time to excise it all. The whole thing was caused in the end when I was 14/15 by overenthusiastic masturbation tearing the tip of my foreskin.
I explained this to my son and asked him to double check the tip of his foreskin. We discussed masturbation techniques to ensure that he did not damage his.
Had I retained a foreskin I could have dropped trou and shown him the offending article, but that would have both surprised him and embarrassed him. It would have been inappropriate. I was able to be perfectly descriptive enough to meet the needs of communication using words and words alone. He was 14 at that stage. We are a family where nudity is unremarkable, and we can discuss sex freely.
[Updated on: Sun, 02 November 2008 20:40]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I agree on your judgements of appropriateness.
Now that I've started thinking of examples, I really can't find a situation where preteen/ adult sexual interaction would be necessary or appropriate.
Morally, these actions are questionable, especially in today's society where, to be honest sex is demonised and children that have had sexual experiences are taught to be the victim. Social attitudes need to change before such an action can be considered morally neutral, because right now there is the chance of emotional harm.
Legality, however? I stand by my point of view that these actions are too harmless to necessitate years locked up in prison.
When it comes to teens it becomes even less clear. But teens are sexual beings and the law should reflect that.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Timmy, I think female circumcision is immoral whether or not it is socially acceptable or a religious ceremony. And I think male circumcision is immoral too, just as cutting any body part off would be, unless it becomes necessary for health or comfort. It seems quite clear to me that either is sexual mutilation.
I don't think morality and custom are the same things at all.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a pity, Roger, that you don't know more. Then we could tell whether we disapprove or not!!
I gather that you knew of nothing wrong and quite a lot of good that followed from the men taking the boys in and chose not to enquire further. I think I would do the same. I do think society has a prurient interest and a wholly reprehensible wish to pass judgment as is shown by the unnecessary parts of the laws that govern sex.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
The only disagreement we have is that the acts are moral and even appropriate in some places. I dislike them both, but there are strong and authoritative people in favour of each of them. That gives them an appropriateness and a morality where that is so even if you and I detest the acts.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Timmy, I thought so. I think the only difference between us is in the use of words.
I wouldn't use 'moral' as a description of a society's customs because I think 'moral' carries some of the overtones of the word 'good' that is to say the overtones of approval. When I want to disapprove of a practice like the Pope's practice of condemning the use of condoms [he is responsible for more people catching AIDS than any other human being alive!] i want to call it immoral and I don't want to have an argument with a Roman Catholic moralist who claims that the Roman Catholic idea is as valid as mine.
It isn't! The Pope is immoral. And I want to be able to say that whatever society thinks and even when I'm in a minority of one.
Letting morality depend on custom deprives you of the ability to disagree since anything can be moral if you can find a society that thinks it acceptable.
Love,
Anthony
[Updated on: Mon, 03 November 2008 12:14] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
Letting morality depend on custom deprives you of the ability to disagree since anything can be moral if you can find a society that thinks it cceptable.
And that is the flaw in your argument, Anthony. Because terms such as 'good' and 'bad', 'moral' and 'immoral' are all defined by the accepted norms of society. If and when society changes its norms - at that has been known to happen! - the meaning of 'good' and 'bad', 'moral' and 'immoral' change accordingly. That is why what one society considers to be immoral is perfectly acceptable to another society. All that you can say about the Pope (or anyone else who does not share your mores) is that you think they are wrong.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I agree that most times someone is pilloried for inappropriate behaviour in a court of law they are hung out to dry because the media in the past has bayed for vengeance.
Should a minor sexual misdemeanour happen and reach the law officers it usually gets blown out of all proportion, and the gutter press manages to sell more copies by screaming "Keep this evil paedo away from our kids!"
Now they are, sometimes, correct. Abuse is sometimes hard to separate from bad judgement. An abuser should feel the full weight of the law. But, where there was relatively harmless idiocy, the full weight of the law is wholly inappropriate.
It has got so that you can't play with a small child in a swimming pool without potentially being accused of "inappropriate touching". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Adamson refers
[Updated on: Mon, 03 November 2008 16:18]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, JFR, I can say he is immoral (and to prove I can, I do). And you certainly know what I mean, whether you agree with me or not. It isn't society that decides what I can say - it is me. (And you and anyone else using value-judgment words.)
And if I say "X is immoral" where X is an act or a person you can disagree with me and the disagreement can either be with my view about what is immoral or not or with society's view, depending on whether I am taking a conventional view or not.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
It isn't society that decides what I can say - it is me.
Anthony, unless I have misunderstood this whole discussion we are arguing different things. Timmy said (rephrased) that morality is subjective, relative, dependent on what is accepted by society. You said that it must be absolute so that you can condemn those (such as Benedict XVI) who act immorally in your eyes. I said, like Timmy, that morality is relative not absolute. You now say something different. Of course you can say whatever you want to say and express any opinion that you want to express. But that does not make your opinion a necessary moral standard for others.
If I have misunderstood, please help me by telling me how you define behaviour or a philosophy as being moral or immoral on the one hand and how you define behaviour or a philosophy as being good or bad on the other, and what the difference is between your two judgements (moral and good or immoral and bad).
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must try to be clearer, JFR.
I'm not saying morality is absolute, just that it isn't simply relative.
But the main message is that when I say something is immoral I am disapproving of it.
I can't say it is immoral but I approve! At least in my book that is contradicting myself.
Love Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
