Is it OK to have sex with kids?

[Banjofrog]

And if not why not?

Most people agree that actions which harm others are wrong, but many actions are illegal which do not harm anyone and are known as victimless crimes. How can society justify criminalizing having sex with kids if it doesn't hurt anyone?

Many assume that a child will be 'traumatized' by having sex with an adult, however this is not true. Firstly ages of consent vary across the world (from 13 in Spain to 18 in California) - proof that there is no consensus on what the minimally acceptable age at which a person can engage in sex is. Secondly much of the 'trauma' (guilt, shame, victimization) felt by 'victims' is in fact caused by society, such as in the case of Africa's 'Witch Children', many of whom genuinely believe they are 'witches' - not because they are but because they have been told they are.

Suppose a child has consensual safe-sex with an adult in a society where this is permitted (and therefore not immoral/taboo etc). In what way would the child be harmed?

[deronmoped]

I always felt that Mother Nature is quite a bit smarter then us thinking people.

Why is it that we do not encourage the reproductive process to begin when Mother Nature designed it to begin. Instead, quite a few woman nowadays wait till their eggs are 30-40 years old and then they wonder why it's so hard to get pregnant and I believe end up with kids with more physical and mental problems.

Sure, one answer would be that kids should not be raising kids, but what should be really happening is the "whole" family unit should be raising the kids. That is, mom and dad, grandpa and grandma, uncles, aunts...

If it's about raising families, I'm all for people producing healthy babies. If it's all about just getting ones self off, then no, that is not what the whole sexual process is supposed to be about.

Deron .

[Gareth]

I think the short answer to this question is NO!

But that is unlikely to satisfy philosophers so we start by defining our terms.

Defining what is a child (a kid to use the parlence of the question) is critical to answering this question. We could analyse the question out of existence by simply defining a child as a human being who is too young for sex, but this would, I suspect, be unsatisfactory.
Another definition is a child is a human being who is too young to procreate. This definition I believe has more legs in that given sexual behaviour evolved for the purpose of procreation and the pleasure gained by sexual behaviour was an evolutionary positive trait it strikes me you could rule out as permissable childeren too young to procreate even if you could demonstate that the 'child' was still able to gain pleasure from the sexual act.
The definition however I most favour is that a child is too young for sex if you wouldn't trust them to point a loaded gun at your head. In more academic terms a child is able to consent to sexual behaviour when he or she is sufficeintly mature to understand the consequences of consenting.

Another thing to be considered is the motivation of the adult in all this. Why would an mature and well balanced adult wish to have sex with someone who is emotionally if not physically underdeveloped and is it not possible that this would only be of interest to those adults who are incapable because of some flaw in their own make up in making mature relationships with partners of their own age.

So whilst I am sure an argument based on the selfish wishes of the adult could be made no argument IMHO can be made which puts the interest of the child first and because I believe such interest should always be paramount the short answer is still NO!

[deronmoped]

Another thing to be considered is the motivation of the adult in all this. Why would an mature and well balanced adult wish to have sex with someone who is emotionally if not physically underdeveloped and is it not possible that this would only be of interest to those adults who are incapable because of some flaw in their own make up in making mature relationships with partners of their own age.

If people were to wait till they were emotionally developed, most people would not have kids. LOL

I look around me and the amount of people that actually take having a good healthy, mentally and physically, family as a serious endeavor are in the minority. That is because it takes a life's work to do it. And they can not figure out, that is why they are on this planet. Life is not about being "Happy".

Deron.

[Fidel]

"Many assume that a child will be 'traumatized' by having sex with an adult, however this is not true. Firstly ages of consent vary across the world (from 13 in Spain to 18 in California) - proof that there is no consensus on what the minimally acceptable age at which a person can engage in sex is."

That ages of consent vary proves there is no consensus on what the ages of consent should be sure. It says nothing whatsoever about whether 'children are traumatized' or not. Presumably we agree it is immoral - and should be illegal - to have sex with an infant, a one year old, an eight year old.. whether they are 'traumatized' or not ... at some point you will reach an age-group range where it seems a 'child' is old enough to give *informed consent* to sexual relations. Then we have a pragmatic question of what the age of consent should be. And questions about whether sex with a mature young person under that age might still not be immoral (though illegal) and whether a practice might be immoral (though legal).

"Secondly much of the 'trauma' (guilt, shame, victimization) felt by 'victims' is in fact causedy society, such as in the case of Africa's 'Witch Children', many of whom genuinely believe they are 'witches' - not because they are but because they have been told they are."

I have to highlight the use of the word MUCH.. if MUCH of the trauma is not caused by society then NOT ALL the trauma is caused by society. We might also have to take heed of harms caused by society, if an adult will cause a minor to traumatized by society by having sex with her that remains an argument in favour of not doing so, however unfair society may be.

I do agree that often it is society not the sexual practice that causes harm - consensual adult incest where they practice 'safe sex' - is illegal in many jurisdictions but need not cause harm and most of the harm caused is indeed by societal dissaproval and legal punishment. And I think there are reasonable questions to ask about consensual sex with young persons - how, for example, is a 14 year old boy harmed when he is seduced by an older woman? Does she act immorally? Should be punished by being put in prison as has occurred, me I think not.

[Belinda]

Deronmoped is right about how youngerwomen tend to give birth to heathier babies. Fidel is right about how societies have different sexual mores.

The criteria for legislating about the age of consent are that children need protection against venereal diseases, conception, childbirth, parenthood and coercion from unscrupulous adults.Other criteria are the prevailing religious and secular mores.
Banjomoped wrote:

Suppose a child has consensual safe-sex with an adult in a society where this is permitted (and therefore not immoral/taboo etc). In what way would the child be harmed?

Some adults are unfit to assess the sexual capabilites of chidren. Children are harmed psychologically by premature sexualisation because they are less able than adults to resist venereal diseases and coercion . The possiblilites of coercion make it impossible for sex with children to be safely consensual.

Deronmoped writes that Mother Nature is wise. But she isn't wise.MN knows nothing. What is wise is the knowledge and experience of centuries stored up within human cultures. Deronmoped is right about the desirability of mutual support within families. Unfortunately this is against the trend for families in post industrial societies and in fast-industrialising societies to disintegrate or to become more 'nuclear' ;and legislators have to work with what is available.

Deronmoped is probably wrong about sex being 'for' procreation. Sex is 'for' whatever we make it for, and to abstract sexual pleasure from sex with reproduction is all right except for the strictures of authoritarian religions which aim to control sexual activity for reasons of maintaining control and provision of a large work force.This fact is tangentially related to the protection of minors.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I think Gareth is wise to point out the importance of defining our terms, namely the term child or kids. As Fidel wisely points out, we probably all want it to be illegal for an adult to have sex with an infant, a one year old, or an eight year old. Then, I think Belinda hits the nail on the head when she writes, "The possiblilites of coercion make it impossible for sex with children to be safely consensual."

That brings us back to the final question in the original post:

Suppose a child has consensual safe-sex with an adult in a society where this is permitted (and therefore not immoral/taboo etc). In what way would the child be harmed?

Banjofrog, the problem with your question in my analysis is the use of the word consensual. Depending on what the age-group is to which you intend to refer by the word child, it is likely the almost everybody in the developed world agrees that the child is incompetent to consent.

Under that premise, having sex with a young child is tantamount to rape no matter the circumstances. And almost everyone agrees in desiring the legal statutes to reflect that, even though there is indeed much disagreement one exactly where to statutorily draw the age of consent line and how to deal legally and socially with borderline situations. Rape is harmful; we all agree. And I think we can agree it is irrelevant if consensual sex between two competently consenting parties is harmful to the participants because competent people can consent to harm or risk like consenting to a boxing match or the dangers of alcohol consumption.

For those reasons, I would lump the question about having sex with young children in with having sex with the severely mentally handicapped, mentally ill and elderly people who have been declared legally incompetent by a relatively fair and honest court system. Moreover, I would lump the issue of having sex with someone incompetent to consent with other potentially dangerous or arguably harmful activities to which competent adults can consent to engage in as 'victimless activities/crimes.' In other words, I would only let one have sex with a certain seemingly willing person/child to the same extent or lack thereof that I would let one drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, smoke cigarettes, drive automobiles, buy and handle loaded guns, completely drop out of school, agree to complicated surgery, agree to a boxing match or volunteer for a prescription drug trial. At very young ages, children obviously cannot truly consent to these things and generally we do not want it to be legal for them to engage in these activities even with parental consent. As the child gets moderately older and wiser, generally somewhere around the early teens, the issue falls into a gray area where many people want it to be legal for a child to do these things with parental consent if the child wants to do them. Indeed, in many jurisdictions statutory rape charges have to be pressed by the parents of the would-be teenage victim, and similarly parents are often allowed to give their teenage children alcohol even when it is illegal for anyone else to give the child alcohol without parental consent. There is certainly a gray area there between it being completely absurd to say a child is old enough or not to consent to things like having sex and drinking alcohol. Indeed, the gray area seems to fall between the ages of 13-21 broadly speaking and 16-18 more narrowly speaking.

So moral terms aside, almost everyone would probably be opposed to and want it illegal for the average adult to have sex with or give a beer to a child under 13. Almost everyone would be completely fine with it if the so-called child was 21 or older. If the child was between 13-15 or 19-21 it would be a gray area with most people leaning towards no for the former and leaning towards yes for the latter, but probably with some qualifications (e.g. "only with parental consent"). Most people however would say that gray area is neither 13-15 nor 19-21 but more like 16-18 and in that range of 16-18 I think most people would say that in most circumstances they would conditionally but completely want to allow a child to engage in these types of activities such as having sex and drinking beer. The two most common conditions I think are requiring parental consent and/or only allowing the child to engage in the activity with people of a similar age. To illustrate the latter, I think most of us would be a lot more disturbed by a 40-year-old man convincing a 16-year-old girl to smoke some marijuana, drink beer or have sex with him than for another 16-year-old to do it. Indeed, the laws in my state reflect that at least for both sex and alcohol. Even just a 22-year-old will get in a lot more trouble caught drinking with a 16-year-old than another 16-year-old would.

[deronmoped]

Deronmoped writes that Mother Nature is wise. But she isn't wise.MN knows nothing. What is wise is the knowledge and experience of centuries stored up within human cultures. Deronmoped is right about the desirability of mutual support within families. Unfortunately this is against the trend for families in post industrial societies and in fast-industrialising societies to disintegrate or to become more 'nuclear' ;and legislators have to work with what is available.

I can not believe how people can so easily discount Mother Nature, MN is constantly pushed to the side like a unwanted dish at a buffet.

We owe our existence to MN, it defines us from head to toe, it directs us, it molds us and it will continue to make refinements to us "forever". If we do not fall in line with MN, we will perish, we will end up as one of the many species that went extinct because they no longer fit in with MN's plan.

Deronmoped is probably wrong about sex being 'for' procreation. Sex is 'for' whatever we make it for, and to abstract sexual pleasure from sex with reproduction is all right except for the strictures of authoritarian religions which aim to control sexual activity for reasons of maintaining control and provision of a large work force.This fact is tangentially related to the protection of minors.

How can you say that without thinking about it logically.

For sex to even exist, you have to have procreation. You can pretend all day long that sex is for "whatever", but without it being used for reproduction, in the end, you end up with "Nothing". There are countless examples of sex being used for "whatever we make it for", yet it all ends there for whoever decides to choose that route. Their lineage ends with them, their genes specific to them ends with them, their only chance at immortality, though their genes, ends with them, their contribution to their family tree ends up in a broken branch...

Deron.

[Fidel]

Deron

Sure in the absence of widespread test-tube babytechniques and baby-growing technology, procreative sex is necessary for the survival of the human race. And our sexual urges have evolutionary causes. But having sex for reproductive purposes is quite consistent with it being used for other - purely recreational purposes - very few sexual acts actually result in pregnancy, even fewer are intended to. There is no 'falling in line' with 'mother nature', she has no goals or plans, not for humans or anything else. A sexual act is "for" whatever it is intended to be for. Our sexual urges are not 'for' anything either, they are not there for any purpose - they are just a necessary condition for the survival of our species (and 'mother nature' whatever that is supposed to refer cares not a damn about that).

[deronmoped]

Deron

Sure in the absence of widespread test-tube babytechniques and baby-growing technology, procreative sex is necessary for the survival of the human race. And our sexual urges have evolutionary causes. But having sex for reproductive purposes is quite consistent with it being used for other - purely recreational purposes - very few sexual acts actually result in pregnancy, even fewer are intended to. There is no 'falling in line' with 'mother nature', she has no goals or plans, not for humans or anything else. A sexual act is "for" whatever it is intended to be for. Our sexual urges are not 'for' anything either, they are not there for any purpose - they are just a necessary condition for the survival of our species (and 'mother nature' whatever that is supposed to refer cares not a damn about that).

What do you mean MN has no "goals or plans"?

Does not MN plan for us to reproduce, is that not the goal of our being here. If MN did not plan for us to reproduce, then what was the plan, to go skipping around holding hands. If the goal of MN was something else besides making sure life continues, then please tell me what was MN goals. If life does not continue, then MN's plan "for life" to continue has failed.

A perfect example of why your description fails is. The people that practice "whatever" sex see their lineage end with them, they do not pass on their genes, the branch of the family tree they were part of has now ended. The people that follow MN's plan of reproduction, making sure life continues, see their genes get passed on, the branch of the family tree they are constructing flourishes, their lineage continues...

Well actually you contradict yourself, on one hand you say sex is for "whatever" on the other you say, it's for the "continuation" of our species. I know you say act and urge, but when it comes down to it, they are both one in the same.

Deron.

[Fidel]

No 'Mother Nature' does not 'plan' anything. It is not her 'goal' that we reproduce. There is no plan, 'she' (and I don't think it helps to personify the natural world) cares not a whit whetehr we skip merrily into extinction. All talk of goals and plans is really wrong-headed. There is no 'plan' for life to continue... it has arisen that is all.

Homosexuals clearly will not pass on their genes through sexual activity, many heterosexuals have no wish to. People who do engage in reproductive sex are indeed necessary for the continuation of the species as things stand but this need not remain the case.

A given sexual act is 'for' whatever the particpants want it to be for - usually mutual pleasure, sometimes money. The sexual urge is a necessary condition for the sexual act and the sexual act is contingently necessary for the continuation of our species but its not "for" that - there is no design. There is a difference between the sun being necessary for our existence and it being there 'for' us to exist.

If you believe in some deity and mean to refer to it by using the phrase 'mother nature' that's not a position I will argue with, but otherwise talk of goals and plans and things be 'for' something (unless a human wants it for something) is just confused.

And, in any case, as I said, reproductive sex is quite consistent with there being (as there already is) lots of non-reproductive sex. I don't see what point you think you are making.

[Typist]

Oh for crying out loud, not on this forum too. I just left the last philosophy forum I was on (every day for over a year) specifically because of the exact same Banjofrog post above.

Banjofrog wants to discuss the pros and cons of child molesting.

I love to discuss the pros and cons of things, but really feel we shouldn't be using some subjects as fodder for our intellectual discussion hobby.

Child molesters are looking for rationalizations they can use to justify their behavior to themselves. Please be aware that anything you say here can be translated in to such a rationalization in a child molesters mind. Our message needs to be utterly clear, and can be expressed best in a single word...

NO!!!

Failure to provide such clarity, and using this topic to entertain ourselves not only hurts kids, it hurts child molesters too. Being a child molester in prison is one of the worst possible ways to be alive.

There's nothing to discuss here. Having sex with kids is the worst kind of crime. Period. End of story.

I respectfully request this thread be deleted. However, I'm realistic, and assume it won't. So I'm off for another philosophy forum where kids get the respect they deserve.

[deronmoped]

Wow

So your accusing these forums as havens for child molesters.

I think that is a "really" "really" big stretch for you to think that child molesters need, the people that post in these forums responses to these and threads like these, to give them the go ahead to molest kids.

And to think that child molesters go looking for forums like these is crazy. "What"! Killers come here too looking for posts that they can point to, "look it's now OK to kill".

Get real.

Deron.

[Belinda]

Typist is not doing philosophy if he refuses to bring reason to bear upon this emotive topic. Gut feelings about the wrong of adults having sex with children is not enough because people's gut feelings, although they are necessary for living good lives , are not sufficient for legislation to protect all who need the protection of their society and its laws.

****************************************

Deronmoped, Mother Nature does all you say she does, but nevertheless nature is not conscious of what it does, and therefore intends nothing.

[enegue]

Hi, guys.

I fully understand what Typist has said. banjofrog is either currently engaged in sex with children or he is contemplating it. He needs approval or disapproval. He is either here to boast about it, he'll be happy to hear from all those who fantasize about such things, but who would never dare, or to be challenge by those who think him immoral, to give him reasons why he should exercise restraint. Self-restraint is a costly exercise, so he's probably not interested in hearing about that.

How old are you banjofrog?
What is your understanding of safe-sex? Blood collecting agencies around the world don't know of such a thing.

Cheers,
enegue.