Is it OK to have sex with kids?

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

I am not sure what you are recommending, can you be more explicit?

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?

Children invariably lack the knowledge and awareness sufficient to meaningfully consent to sex.

Unless you have a compelling response, it really is that simple.

-- Updated Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:22 pm to add the following --

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

I am not sure what you are recommending, can you be more explicit?

Is "more explicit" really such a good idea here?

I think not.

Not ok find some one your own age or close to it.

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?

The short answer to this is that not even adults handle sex very well, so why on earth would you think children would?

No it is not ok to have sex with kids, and here is why.

Sexual ethics are really easy. Anything is completely fine and above board provided it is made with informed consent and does not kill or permanently damage an individual such that they may regret it later. This allows for an impressive array of sexual festishes which are acceptible. The only things I can name off the top of my head that are not acceptible are the following: Rape (Sex without that person's consent), Pedophilia (Sex with a child, who by definition lacks informed consent), Necrophilia (Any kind of sexual act involving deceased persons or the killing of a person), Beastiality (Sex with another species, who by definition lack informed consent---and also this isn't exactly good for your own sexual health either), Cannibalism (Though not necessarily involving the death of someone does otherwise permanently damage someone) and finally some of the more extreme forms of BDSM which involve permanently damaging people i.e. bone breaking, mutilation, immolation etc.

Even if a child lets you have sex with them, or even instigates it (yes this can happen), it is still wrong to have sex with them. To have sex with someone you need their informed consent. A child is not informed. They are not informed because knowledge of the biological processes and consequences of sex is not all that sex is, sex also has deep emotional significance, something which puperty takes years of hormonal development prepairing young people to handle, and even then it invariably goes horribly wrong. For example, how many people are actually happy with the manner in which they lost their virginity? How marriages and relationships are ruined because of sexual infidelity? How many teenagers, and even adults, spend hours every day worrying about whether or not they have failed at life just because their friends claim to have had more sex than them? How many accidental pregnancies and STDs are there because people were too caught up in the moment to think about the basics of contraception? You can't look at all this and seriously say that sex isn't a big deal, it clearly is, and given how well adults deal with it, do you really honestly think a child could handle that? Or more importantly would understand what they are getting themselves into?

Suffice to say they wouldn't have the faintest idea. Children arn't stupid, nobody is saying that they are, but they are not knowledgeable of these things (physically they arn't, they lack the hormonal development to think about sex the same way teenagers and adults do), and it is knowledge that is neccesary for informed consent, not intelligence.

-- Updated Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:56 pm to add the following --

p.s.

In response to your last question about safe-sex with an adult in a society where this is permitted, you've only to look at history to answer that question. In the middle ages for example, girls were married to husbands in their early teens or even younger. In ancient sparta, apprentices were taught the arts, combat skills, and sexual skills, all while they were young boys. None of this means it was a good idea. What was once normal has no bearing on what is right or wrong. These were not nice times to be around relative to modern civilisation. We modern people complain about our lives constantly, but when was the last time we had where half our body weight in chainmail in order to walk out the front door just because some nutter with a broadsword might want to come at us? None of these sexualised children of history has any idea what they were getting themselves into, in fact most of them never had any choice whatsoever.

"If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition."

It may be harmless for two childeren of similar ages indulging in 'sex' but I have yet to see any authenticated evidence that an adult having sex with a child is anything but abuse.

I haven't read the Trauma Myth... does she give any scientific evidence or is it mostly anecdotal?

"If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition."

It may be harmless for two childeren of similar ages indulging in 'sex' but I have yet to see any authenticated evidence that an adult having sex with a child is anything but abuse.

I haven't read the Trauma Myth... does she give any scientific evidence or is it mostly anecdotal?

I read a brief resume and it it appeared to me as a paedophiles book of excuses. She is has a history of upsetting those she writes about.

Paedophiles are very good at portraying themselves as victims and blaming the true victim in these cases.

Most of them are quite devious enough to find all the excuses they need without the resort to a book so it seems that this 'Trauma Myth' is totally surplace to requirements.

On a broader note: I am generally in favour of exploring the limits of morality and the ethical basis for such morality but I do find this particular thread offends my sense of common decency and for that reason I shall take no further part. If you want a philosophical jusification; I site D. Hume and his sense of sympathy as grounds for morality.

The visceral, and, ultimately, correct answer is: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

In terms of human interaction, something is ethically wrong if it involves doing something to that person, or to that person's property without their consent.

Having sex with someone who is too young to understand what is going on, or is not legally responsible for themselves, is, unequivically wrong. In all cases.

I in no way condone having sex with kids but I was wondering at what age does everyone else on this thread consider a person to no longer be a kid. I would say 17 but again don't get me wrong I will not be sleeping with any 17 year olds in the future.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'OK'. If by 'OK', you mean 'not detrimental to society', then here are my views:

I think there are two main types of sex which harm society:

1. Rape. If all sex with children is tantamount to rape, then it's not OK. If some sex with children is distinct from rape, then that sex is OK as long as it's not deceitful sex (see 2).

2. Deceitful sex. This is any sex wherein one party was aware that the sex would be physically harmful to the other party, but withheld the information. So, if some sex is physically harmful to children, then that sex is not OK if the children aren't informed of the dangers beforehand. If they are informed, then it is OK as long as it's not rape (see 1).

In conclusion, I think 'sex with kids' encompasses too many different situations to simply be OK or not OK. I think, as with all other types of sex, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is OK in some situations, and not OK in others. My list above acts as a rough guide to determining which those situations are.

This question will only be asked by criminals - the answer is ABSOLUTELY NO!

Xris - Your posts #22 and #34 excellent - something we completely agree on!

This question will only be asked by criminals - the answer is ABSOLUTELY NO!

Xris - Your posts #22 and #34 excellent - something we completely agree on!

That answer will only be provided by people who are afraid of questioning societal norms - the answer is ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS!

I in no way condone having sex with kids but I was wondering at what age does everyone else on this thread consider a person to no longer be a kid. I would say 17 but again don't get me wrong I will not be sleeping with any 17 year olds in the future.

The law says 18. I dissagree both with the law and with you.

An individual does not cease to be a child until he/she is no longer a dependent. Thus, no person should be allowed to do anything without parental consent (including having sex) until that person is living on his/her own, out of his/her own pocket.

Incidentally, the same principle should apply to wards of the state; and anyone receiving welfare/financial assistance from the government should be considered to be a ward of the state.

I in no way condone having sex with kids but I was wondering at what age does everyone else on this thread consider a person to no longer be a kid. I would say 17 but again don't get me wrong I will not be sleeping with any 17 year olds in the future.

The law says 18. I dissagree both with the law and with you.

An individual does not cease to be a child until he/she is no longer a dependent. Thus, no person should be allowed to do anything without parental consent (including having sex) until that person is living on his/her own, out of his/her own pocket.

What if the parents are also children by your definition? Then they shouldn't be allowed to do anything?

I in no way condone having sex with kids but I was wondering at what age does everyone else on this thread consider a person to no longer be a kid. I would say 17 but again don't get me wrong I will not be sleeping with any 17 year olds in the future.

The law says 18. I dissagree both with the law and with you.

An individual does not cease to be a child until he/she is no longer a dependent. Thus, no person should be allowed to do anything without parental consent (including having sex) until that person is living on his/her own, out of his/her own pocket.

What if the parents are also children by your definition? Then they shouldn't be allowed to do anything?

If the parents fit this description, then they never should have had children to begin with.

If you cannot (or will not) support yourself, then you are not a fit specimen, and you should not reproduce until such time as you are capable of independently raising a child.

If you are in this condition, and you have a child, then it should be the case that your child becomes the de facto ward of your ward unless and until you achieve financial independence.