A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > A moral question?
A moral question?  [message #56820] Sun, 10 May 2009 23:03 Go to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



I want to look at this without the constraints of laws to guide us. In England the Age of Consent was introduced originally for girls of nine years old. Today the English age of consent is 16. Ok, that is fact. But let us divorce the discussion form legality or illegality, and let us remove religious and societal justifications for control of individuals.

My question is "Why is sex with children wrong?"

It may not be wrong in your eyes, just unlawful. It may be wrong and unlawful, too.

Sex is fun. We like children to have fun. So why do we deny them this chance to have fun with a more experienced older person? Or is it a denial? Is there a deeper reason? Or are adults so jealous of the everyday fun that children have that we wish to keep one sort of fun for ourselves? Or is an adult exploiting a willing child if they have sex with them?

So give some opinions, which may or may not be congruent with your own opinions, and let's see what falls out of the discussion.

[Updated on: Sun, 10 May 2009 23:03]




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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56821 is a reply to message #56820] Sun, 10 May 2009 23:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



OK, nothing new here from me, but for what it's worth ...

Younger children *do* have a sexuality, but it's very different in kind and quality from the sexuality of post-pubescent children / adults. I think this difference is such that for there to be any meaningful emotional communication about (or during) sex between adult and young child is impossible - this makes it IMO wrong.(Added - to clarify, because the child is incapable of giving "informed consent" to any meaningful degree)

Furthermore, I think that - at least in our society, and probably in most societies - there's (rightly) a structural power imbalance between adult and child, which I think poses too much risk both of exploitation within any such relationship and of setting the model for subsequent - even adult - relationships for the child in such terms.

For kids either side of puberty with each other, I don't see any problem.

For adults with just post-pubertal kids, I hesitate to say that it's always wrong for everyone ... but it would be wrong for me, because I could never trust myself that the relationship was one where there was a reasonable degree of equality.

In case this sounds as though I'm putting sex up on some kind of pedestal - believe me, I'm not. I don't have any problems with sex as a recreation, not as a commercial transaction provided one party is not driven to it by dire poverty (street kids and suchlike). But exploiting other humans is one of the things I do think is wrong - immoral, in fact - and I think intergenerational sex presents a serious risk of it.

> edited: added clarification in 2nd paragraph

[Updated on: Sun, 10 May 2009 23:51]




"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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56822 is a reply to message #56821] Mon, 11 May 2009 07:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



NW wrote:
> Furthermore, I think that - at least in our society, and probably in most societies - there's (rightly) a structural power imbalance between adult and child, which I think poses too much risk both of exploitation within any such relationship and of setting the model for subsequent - even adult - relationships for the child in such terms.

If you remove the societal constraints? Take the desert island where society reinvents itself, for example? What then?



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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56823 is a reply to message #56820] Mon, 11 May 2009 08:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



I wonder, Timmy. To put it in a more neutral context: when you read Lolita did you think Humbert Humbert was immoral or depraved? I don't think I did.

On the other hand I was repelled by the master slave SM in The story of Tim.

I think it is quite hard to tell when what you do to a child may do them harm. If you look back to your own childhood there are many ways quite separate from sex where apparently innocent actions caused a lot of distress. And when parents stayed together maybe the harm done was as bad as the harm done now by (fights over and after) divorce.

I think modern society is obsessed by sex and sex crime - which in my opinion is greatly over-emphasised, probably because the religious can express their prejudices there without admitting the religious feelings underlying their views.

One thing I am sure about and that is that nudity never hurt anyone but excessive modesty hurt a lot of people.

And I'm also fairly sure that it is possible for a mature post pubertal child to have sex with an older person without any trauma or problem of any kind.

When my friend Dominic got his school matron into bed he was elated about it and still boasts of it forty years later. When my friend Lewis discovered that his French master, when his duty was to see to lights out in the dormitory, used to sit on boys beds and fondle them to orgasm Lewis desperately wanted his bed to be sat on (and, eventually, it was). I can't believe that did him any harm.

But society has a very long way to go before it agrees with me that sex is the best possible way to be really nice to someone.

If I were to set the rules I think I would do away with the age of consent completely and use other tests to decide whether significant harm was done.
But I haven't even a proposal to offer. Probably such ideas would only work in a changed society.

Love,
Anthony
Re: A moral question?  [message #56824 is a reply to message #56823] Mon, 11 May 2009 08:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



acam wrote:
> But society has a very long way to go before it agrees with me that sex is the best possible way to be really nice to someone.

Is sex truly being nice to someone?



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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56825 is a reply to message #56822] Mon, 11 May 2009 09:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



timmy wrote:

> If you remove the societal constraints? Take the desert island where society reinvents itself, for example? What then?

The level of dependence of the young child for physical survival is, if anything, even greater on a desert island, and the imbalance far more pronounced.



"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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56826 is a reply to message #56825] Mon, 11 May 2009 10:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



Perhaps I ought to have suggested a blank canvass, not a desert island. Smile

I am not speaking of relationshops either. I am speaking of the simple, perhaps mechanical, acts we define as sex.



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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56827 is a reply to message #56826] Mon, 11 May 2009 10:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



timmy wrote:

> I am not speaking of relationshops either. I am speaking of the simple, perhaps mechanical, acts we define as sex.

Mechanical acts don't really have a moral dimension.

I take and eat a sweet that I have not bought or had given to me. The simple act is neither moral not immoral, not amoral. Simply un-moral. If I've nicked it from a supermarket, the act is probably wrong. If it's in the basket of shopping my partner bought, it's probably fine (unless it was the last one!). Morals - as far as I can see - are about relationships between things and people, and with ourselves.

I'm not necessarily talking about some massive lifelong relationship here - five minutes with a prostitute is a relationship, even if only a commercial one.



"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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56828 is a reply to message #56824] Mon, 11 May 2009 10:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



If sex isn't being nice to someone (and them being nice back) then what do you think it is, Timmy? I suppose that you could be using the other person as a sort of superior masturbatory aid. Perhaps I mean "What do you think it should be?"

And perhaps I ought to have written that it ought to be the best way of being really nice to someone. And I suppose I take as much pleasure from the other person's delight as I do in my own. After all if I want to concentrate on just me and nobody else I can always go and masturbate - I think most men do, occasionally.

I think the least satisfactory sex I've ever had was when my partner didn't have an orgasm (or when he did and at once said goodbye) - it made me feel used and I'm fairly sure in at least one case I was just a superior masturbation tool. Nowadays I might be less fussy!

It might be informative to ask members on here that don't have sex or only very rarely why that is. I think you would find that it is because they haven't found a loving partner that they would feel comfortable with.

At any rate if I were single that would be my reason - and I would be looking for such a loving partner. My daughter Emily remarked to me "If Sylvia died you would be looking for a man wouldn't you?" and I said "Yes, of course."

But I wouldn't be looking for an ephebe - at least I don't think so. Maybe I think sex is best between equals and maybe that is behind part of my doubts about sex with the young.

Love,
Anthony
Re: A moral question?  [message #56830 is a reply to message #56827] Mon, 11 May 2009 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



I agree, NW. If emotion isn't involved and we speak only of the mechanical act and if the mechanical act doesn't involve pain then it is probably amoral. I guess that sex done under hypnosis so that there is no memory of it and no physical harm then that could be amoral too.

Of course it might do the hypnotiser harm. That then becomes similar to the argument against cruelty to animals that it brutalises the person who is cruel and is wrong for that reason.

I do think that it is because sex is so bound up with emotion that we make it so special and I think if it isn't special and becomes as common a pleasure as eating (as I could imagine in some sorts of commune) then that would devalue it and de-emphasise it, but I can't really believe that orgasm isn't special.

Love,
Anthony

[Updated on: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:09]

Re: A moral question?  [message #56831 is a reply to message #56830] Mon, 11 May 2009 11:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



Anthony, I find the comparison with eating really interesting.

I have to have taken pretty strongly against someone before I'll avoid "breaking bread" with them - but there are some such people.

Cooking, on the other hand, is something I do *for* people. I want to make it nice for them - be it vegetarian, vegan, special diet, or just personal taste. It's an expression of nurturing and caring, often of love. I could never have sex with someone I didn't want to cook for! (though I often cook for family and friends that I don't want to have sex with). Cooking is something I enjoy, that I do *for* people I care about. The interesting thing is that it's only kind-of reciprocal: those I cook for may cook for me, or may show their affection in other ways.

Sex, on the other hand, is something I enjoy, that I do *for* a person I care about, and that *is* reciprocal (or, for me, it doesn't work).



"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
Interesting this, that you ...  [message #56834 is a reply to message #56820] Mon, 11 May 2009 12:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Gay Deceiver is currently offline  The Gay Deceiver

Really getting into it
Location: Canada
Registered: December 2003
Messages: 869




... should raise this topic at just this time.

I have been mulling over in my mind for some months whether I should posit just such a question; but, one from a slightly more skewed perspective.

My question would have been:

"Given the arrival of the new millennium, and the evolution of our society's less polarized perspective on homosexuality, have consensual intergeneration sexual relations become more acceptable?"

Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, canada



"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
My intent here, is not to hijack this thread ...  [message #56835 is a reply to message #56834] Mon, 11 May 2009 12:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Gay Deceiver is currently offline  The Gay Deceiver

Really getting into it
Location: Canada
Registered: December 2003
Messages: 869




... so please, let us not pursue my question here.

Perhaps at another time, in a thread of it's own, we can together examine fully the spirit of what I asked in the here and now.

I had asked, simply to share with you, that I, too, have recently been pondering the morality of just such a dilema.

Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada

[Updated on: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:18]




"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
Re: A moral question?  [message #56836 is a reply to message #56828] Mon, 11 May 2009 12:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



acam wrote:
> If sex isn't being nice to someone (and them being nice back) then what do you think it is, Timmy? I suppose that you could be using the other person as a sort of superior masturbatory aid. Perhaps I mean "What do you think it should be?"

Sex is the simple act of whatever one defines "a fuck" to be. This may or may not include penetration.



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
Re: Interesting this, that you ...  [message #56837 is a reply to message #56834] Mon, 11 May 2009 12:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



yours is a subset of mine



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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56838 is a reply to message #56831] Mon, 11 May 2009 12:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



Nonetheless I am trying very hard to keep the sexual element separate. Giving, receiving or exchanging, I simple see it as a pleasurable physical sensation with one or more persons present and potentially participating.

Ethics are interesting, of course they are, hence the "?" in the initial question. Now be free from them and have no rules to bind 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
Now, to answer your question ...  [message #56840 is a reply to message #56820] Mon, 11 May 2009 12:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Gay Deceiver is currently offline  The Gay Deceiver

Really getting into it
Location: Canada
Registered: December 2003
Messages: 869




... and it should be patently obvious to all, that I have great difficulty with this question; so please, let me posit "that circumstance (both time and place) must have relevance" in any rational discussion of this topic.

"Is sex with children wrong?"

Likely.

"Is it morally reprehensible?"

Without any doubt at all in my mind.

BUT, and this is the catch-22 in any discussion of this topic:

"What is, and should be, the definition of a child?"

ABOUT ME, I was shaving at age eleven, having enjoyed my first "real" orgasm early in my tenth year, and had become very sexually active by age twelve, more often as not with teenagers far older than myself, and on a number of occasions with adults in their twenties, with all always consensually, and never, ever taken under duress.

THIS "circumstance" clouds, as it obviously would, any rational discourse I may have to contribute.

CHILD, to me, would have to be defined as being any individual certifiably prepubescent, and in terms of their being "male", one who has no fully developed pubic hair, and is not physically, let alone willingly, capable of delivering up ejaculate to his partner in the affair.

That clarifies my definition of the manifestations of what I would consider being "physically mature enough" and "not a child"; regardless, this doesn't address the larger issue of "emotional" or "psychological" maturity, and the young person's capability to deal with any ramifications of any such encounter. Therein lies the rub.

Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada

[Updated on: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:00]




"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
Re: A moral question?  [message #56841 is a reply to message #56820] Mon, 11 May 2009 14:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



After removing legal and social restrictions you are left with one very significant reason for adults not to engage in sex with pre-pubescent children: physical injury. The holes in their bodies are not large enough for an adult penis and injury is likely.

Another problem is the authority role that adults generally have over children. How does one determine if the child is willing or has been persuaded or coerced? "If you don't say you were willing it will be bad for you."

JimB
Re: A moral question?  [message #56842 is a reply to message #56838] Mon, 11 May 2009 15:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



timmy wrote:
> Nonetheless I am trying very hard to keep the sexual element separate. Giving, receiving or exchanging, I simple see it as a pleasurable physical sensation with one or more persons present and potentially participating.
>
> Ethics are interesting, of course they are, hence the "?" in the initial question. Now be free from them and have no rules to bind you.

Timmy, I don't honestly see how there can be a "me" or a "you" without some kind of ethics - they may vary a lot, but are near-universal among humans (and several other higher animals). The very terms you use: "Giving, receiving or exchanging" imply some relationship other than an arbitrary collision of bodies. I simply fail to begin to understand what you're talking about.



"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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56843 is a reply to message #56841] Mon, 11 May 2009 15:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



The holes in their bodies are not large enough for an adult penis and injury is likely.

So an adult female with a male child would be okay?

What about fellatio? Or handjobs?



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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56844 is a reply to message #56820] Mon, 11 May 2009 15:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



I don't think sex with children is wrong. But it can be wrong. Sex is over-hyped so let's replace sex with another act of physical intimacy- a back rub and let me ask the questions:
Is it wrong to give a child a back rub?
Is it wrong for a child to give an adult a back rub?
Is it wrong for an adult to make a child give them a back rub?

Back rubs are quite pleasurable for the receiver. And they are quite intimate. And they are a physical act.

How is a back rub much different from a hand job (penetrative sex is a more complicated matter)? The main difference is that a hand job has an end, a back rub you want to keep going. There is a difference in degree of pleasure, too.

But if it's okay to engage in back rubs with a child, why is it not okay to engage in hand jobs?



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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56846 is a reply to message #56844] Mon, 11 May 2009 16:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



Saben wrote:

> How is a back rub much different from a hand job (penetrative sex is a more complicated matter)? The main difference is that a hand job has an end, a back rub you want to keep going.

The nature of the experience is different: for an adult an hand-job *does* have an end, whereas for many pre-pubertal kids it doesn't (no orgasm), and for others it only kinda does (orgasm without ejaculation, so negligible recovery period).

I'm sticking to the "purely mechanical" stuff as far as possible, here - the psychological and pysiological differences are probably even greater.



"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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56847 is a reply to message #56843] Mon, 11 May 2009 16:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



Saben wrote:
> So an adult female with a male child would be okay?
>
> What about fellatio? Or handjobs?
I was wondering what your answers to these questions would be and I found it in your later post.
Saben wrote:
> I don't think sex with children is wrong.

My answer is reflected in the second point I made.
JimB wrote:
> Another problem is the authority role that adults generally have over children.

JimB
Re: A moral question?  [message #56848 is a reply to message #56844] Mon, 11 May 2009 17:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



But the topic IS sex, not physical intimacy. And I hardly classify a back rub as intimate. My masseuse or masseur sometimes work on intimate areas but it isn't my back.

To equate manipulation of a penis or vagina with a back rub is stretching the imagination beyond reason in my opinion.

JimB
Re: A moral question?  [message #56849 is a reply to message #56848] Mon, 11 May 2009 17:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



There's a stronger desire when sex, especially adult sex is involved. While the acts may be similar there is a "beast" that can be harder to contain, especially with males, and that beast pushes towards the end.

I'm trying to discuss the nature of sex in a vacuum. Obviously in society a great deal of emphasis is placed on the genitals above other body parts. But does touch-based stimulation of one body part deserve any more reverence than touch based stimulation of another body part?

I struggle to think it should. As I've discussed in the past I think that sex with children due to the difference in interest has the potential to go sour (much as play fighting with children often goes sour). But I'm not sure that should bias us against all sex with children, much as we are not biased against all intergenerational play fighting.

I try and draw analogies between sex and other acts of a similar nature because I'm trying to isolate sex, as an act, from society's views of sex. While a kid could get hurt or could be pressured into sex with an adult I don't think that's any different to any other situation where a kid can get hurt by an adult or be pressured into something. The harm and the pressuring are wrong, I struggle to see why the sex itself is...



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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56850 is a reply to message #56847] Mon, 11 May 2009 17:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



Another problem is the authority role that adults generally have over children.

So what, adults shouldn't have authority over children? Surprised I'm actually inclined to think society should lean MORE in that direction...

But in realistic terms adults often abuse their power over children, "go get mummy a drink", why is "give daddy a hand job" any different, apart from the repulsion we may feel at the phrasing (I admit when I put things in those words it gets very hard to agree with my own argument!)



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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56851 is a reply to message #56849] Mon, 11 May 2009 18:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



Saben wrote:
> (much as play fighting with children often goes sour)
This occurs when either the adult exceeds limits assuring the safety of the children involved or when the childrens' immature minds exceed the limits of reality (such as when a child picks up a real gun not understanding that it can/will result in death).

Saben wrote:
> The harm and the pressuring are wrong, I struggle to see why the sex itself is...
Because the child's immature mind may not be able to properly deal with the non-physical aspects of sex.

Saben wrote:
> Obviously in society a great deal of emphasis is placed on the genitals above other body parts. But does touch-based stimulation of one body part deserve any more reverence than touch based stimulation of another body part?
Yes. There is considerable difference between touch based stimulation used to calm or show caring (such as to the arms, shoulders or back) versus sexual arousal.

JimB
Re: A moral question?  [message #56854 is a reply to message #56820] Mon, 11 May 2009 20:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



We have yet to consider the young person who makes it very clear that he wants sexual contact with an older person. Yes, it does happen and not infrequently. In school it is often the the crush on the rugby master or similar. By young person I mean a boy who sexually mature in a physical way. In an emotional way would be coincidetal.

Hugs
N



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: A moral question?  [message #56855 is a reply to message #56854] Mon, 11 May 2009 20:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



Nigel wrote:
> We have yet to consider the young person who makes it very clear that he wants sexual contact with an older person. Yes, it does happen and not infrequently. In school it is often the the crush on the rugby master or similar. By young person I mean a boy who sexually mature in a physical way. In an emotional way would be coincidetal.


Well I said in my first post on the thread that "For adults with just post-pubertal kids, I hesitate to say that it's always wrong for everyone ... but it would be wrong for me, because I could never trust myself that the relationship was one where there was a reasonable degree of equality." That is, of course, partly born out of my own experience of having been very much in love with an adult, and having my first sexual experience (including my first orgasm) at his hands: there may be non-damaging sexual relationships between adult (especially young adult) and post-pubertal child, but I wouldn't feel happy betting a kids future emotional well-being on it.

PS Rugby Master? Yeeuchh! But one of the English teachers ...



"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
Re: A moral question?  [message #56858 is a reply to message #56820] Mon, 11 May 2009 22:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Blumoogle is currently offline  Blumoogle

Likes it here
Location: South Africa
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 159




I don't consider sexual activities with any person physically capable of giving or receiving those activities wrong, per se'.

I agree there is a greater degree of physical harm possible with persons of relatively different ages, but the act itself wouldn't cause ANY emotional harm in a world where there were no taboo's about sex, because there would be no intrinsic value to it, asking for sex in a public park with the child's parents sitting beside him wouldn't be seen as anything more or less than playing tag with the child. It would have no real emotional value except simple happiness, and there would be no 'bullying' for sex, because the child would have sex with any adult as regularly as he would agree to being pushed on a swing by them. It would stop being a commodity, or strange and both would simply create fun physical sensations.

Any adult could get sex from anyone at any time, and even if one forced a child to have sex with them, it would be no more wrong or right than making them play with a ball with you. A short sulk, at most, and then forgotten, and very little, if any, emotional damage, bacause, this world would also have the same influence on the adults, and they wouldn't even think about using sex as a controll tool - it wouldn't be wrong, so there would be very little to gain and thus no reason for a mentally disturbed person to force any children to have sex with them anyway.

Think about it this way - If an entire city was made of gold, would a thief from that city steal a plain gold brick? Would he see any reason to? It would be pretty to him, sure, but mundane. So would sex with children in a world where there was no taboos about it.
Perhaps it would still be wrong for an adult to force a child to have sex, but no more than swinging a child when he doesn't want to - a lot less wrong, or am I wrong? Would an adult be exploiting a child if he asked the child to swing him? If he asks, and doesn't expect much, then no, as long as the child doesn't get hurt.

My long-winded point was actually - sex with children would be FAAAR less 'wrong' if there were no taboos about sex with anyone at all, and the possible damage would also be far less if it were used with intent to harm



A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent

-William Blake
Re: A moral question?  [message #56860 is a reply to message #56850] Mon, 11 May 2009 22:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



Saben wrote:
> So what, adults shouldn't have authority over children? Surprised I'm actually inclined to think society should lean MORE in that direction...
My statement was that the authority figure in conjunction with sex was a problem, not the authority itself. Are you suggesting that we let kids make their own decisions all the time. What to eat, whether or not to attend school? That we should allow them to drive or drink alcohol if they so choose? The authority figure is there to give the kids guidance until they are mature enough to make such decisions themselves.

Saben wrote:
> But in realistic terms adults often abuse their power over children, "go get mummy a drink"
That implies that "go get mummy a drink" is an abuse of power and I agree.
> why is "give daddy a hand job" any different
It isn't, it also is abuse of power.

> I admit when I put things in those words it gets very hard to agree with my own argument!
I'm sure glad to hear that!

JimB
Re: A moral question?  [message #56861 is a reply to message #56858] Mon, 11 May 2009 23:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



I agree with you that the potential emotional harm regarding adult-child sex is because of the taboos about sex that society has created. I also agree with the wrongness of forcing a child to do things that are not sex related. However we have to consider the rightness of forcing a child to do what is best for them; go to bed, not roam the streets after dark, eat something other than their favorite foods, etc.

JimB
Re: A moral question?  [message #56863 is a reply to message #56861] Mon, 11 May 2009 23:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Blumoogle is currently offline  Blumoogle

Likes it here
Location: South Africa
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 159




JimB wrote>>

However we have to consider the rightness of forcing a child to do what is best for them; go to bed, not roam the streets after dark, eat something other than their favorite foods, etc.

>>

I'm not sure how this follows from my previous post, but let us consider it none the less:

The problem here is, "what constitutes abuse of power?" - is it wrong to froce someone to do something that in the long term is good for them? Do the ends or good intentions justify any means or actions at all? When put like that, I want to say catagorically no, but I'm aware I'm going to regret it when applied to the specific examples given. In these cases it might be right to actively persuade the child to do what is best for them, and take both their rights and responsibilites for their actions in these instances(An inseperable set of twins that must remain together with one person or organisation, those rights and responsibilites) as your own. One must be carefull, however, in using the term 'force' - I prefer active persuation, and even that must be limited and gradually decreassed so that they can and as they do, learn to decide these things for themselves, and fail for themselves in relatively protected learning environments.



A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent

-William Blake
Re: A moral question?  [message #56865 is a reply to message #56863] Mon, 11 May 2009 23:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Blumoogle is currently offline  Blumoogle

Likes it here
Location: South Africa
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 159




I said>>

I'm not sure how this follows from my previous post, but let us consider it none the less:

Just Ignore that line completely, in my previous post. I reread your post and saw where it came from. Lol. Sorry



A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent

-William Blake
icon5.gif Questioning this topic  [message #56871 is a reply to message #56820] Tue, 12 May 2009 02:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



If a gay teen were to visit this forum for the first time and see the topic of this thread what do you think would be his reaction? Would he be encouraged to investigate the forum further? Or would he turn away in disgust?

JimB
I see nothing in this thread that would alarm anyone ...  [message #56872 is a reply to message #56871] Tue, 12 May 2009 04:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Gay Deceiver is currently offline  The Gay Deceiver

Really getting into it
Location: Canada
Registered: December 2003
Messages: 869




... quite the contrary; my own comments (shared above) included.

What is germane, and of particular interest to any new visitor here, whether a teen or otherwise, is our attempt at an objective airing of a rather contentious topic; a topic which "may be" especially relevant to a teen seeking counsel from any adult participating here.

This thread, thus far, has neither advocated, nor sanctioned, sexual relations with children; what has emerged ARE CONCERNS about what may, and does, constitute "a child" and THE POTENTIAL for abuse in any of the atypical Master/Slave roles played by an adult and child in such relationships, whether they be Parent/Child, Teacher/Student, Clergy/Parishioner to illustrate just a few; in fact, any Power/Control situation where sexual interaction may occur.

This is as it should be.

Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada

[Updated on: Tue, 12 May 2009 04:39]




"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
Re: I see nothing in this thread that would alarm anyone ...  [message #56873 is a reply to message #56872] Tue, 12 May 2009 04:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ray2x is currently offline  ray2x

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429



A teen boy would be here to discuss the issues as best he could.
And with earlier topic of discussion, Sex with children, no. Sex with tweens, possible. Sex with adolescents, most probable; however they may have to invite you into their culture and you should be prepared to enter into their culture.



Raymundo
Re: Questioning this topic  [message #56876 is a reply to message #56871] Tue, 12 May 2009 06:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



Either or neither. Most people would look at the topic and see a subject that is by no means gay being discussed in an abstract manner. The answer, as with all discussions on any topic at all depends on the eyes reading the discussion. It does not depend much upon the participants.

This topic may or may not reach a conclusion. It is a discussion.



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
What happens at puberty that this is a special age?  [message #56877 is a reply to message #56820] Tue, 12 May 2009 06:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



Many answers have referred directly or indirectly to puberty being a watershed of some description. A pre-pubertal child enjoys sexual sensations just as much as a post pubertal child. I know this from mentions here of childhood experiences and my own amazing sensations at seven years old when climbing a rope in gym for the first time.

So what is it that makes puberty so apparently special in these discussions?



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
sex and eating and cooking  [message #56878 is a reply to message #56831] Tue, 12 May 2009 08:26 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



I was surprised, NW, how completely I agree with you.

I too, enjoy cooking for someone and it has a lot of parallels to loving them. It too is done to please and if it fails and the guest doesn't get pleasure from it I would feel a failure and very disappointed.

Maybe that's why I'm quite a good cook!

The question about sex is how far from reciprocal it can be before it ceases to be the fun it should be. I have always said to myself that I would never pay for sex, for example.

But what difference in age or experience or maturity would make it far enough from non-reciprocal to spoil it (for either partner)?

I can look at beautiful young people with lust but I really don't think I could have a reciprocal relationship with them - or more important they couldn't have one with me (do you remember what you thought of old men when you were, say, 18?) - both good reasons for not doing it.

And I am surprised how attractive I find some of my retired friends.

Love,
Anthony

[Updated on: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:28]

Previous Topic: I should really quit smoking!
Next Topic: I Feel so Inexperienced
Goto Forum: