Paedophilia and societies others

brianthebard

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

ChocolateSauce

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

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

brianthebard

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

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

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

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

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

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

brianthebard

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

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Kama

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

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

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


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

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

ChocolateSauce

Kama wrote: »

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

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

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

Kama

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

brianthebard

Kama wrote: »

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

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