BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

North American Man Boy Love Association, Inter-Generational Relationships, the Ethics of paedophilia, Free Speech, and much much more

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
20:37 / 22.04.06
From Shadowsax's Ginsberg thread I stumbled onto the wikipedia site for NAMBLA the North American Man/Boy Love Association. So, intergenerational love? This is pretty odd, to put it bluntly, and I think we can get a lot of talk time out of this subject - anything from free speech advocacy all the way through to discusion of the legal age of consent onto 70's Gay and Lesbian Politics.

What I'd like to talk about most, however, is a comment my mother about Gay and lesbian relationships, and how she thought that while I may frown upon her opinions on Gay and lesbian relationships (she's a staunch catholic), when I have children, it may be that Paedophilic relationships are viewed in a similar way, and my daughter may be giving me stick because of my outmoded, bigoted views. Which I think is frankly bollocks.

(Little Disclaimer, this thread contains a hypothetical point, and I do not believe that Gay Men/Women can in any way be compared to Paedophilles, two different things, completely)
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
22:39 / 22.04.06
I thought South Park made it up too, until I found that Wikipedia entry.
On one hand I can see a kind of logic in NAMbLA* (and Mathlete's mum's) argument. A hundred years ago if somebody told an average person that it's okay for two consenting adult males to have sex they'd react in pretty much the same way we do to NAMbLA today.
On the other hand, well, if I need to tell you the arguments against NAMbLA then you may as well sign up for their newsletter now.
As for their freedom of speech, I think the consensus we reached in the David Irving thread (which I'm having trouble finding), was that sometimes there are views that are a) based on lies or misused evidence and b) morally wrong, and that espousing them should be stopped wherever possible. Do you think there's a comparison here- between holocaust denial and pedophile activism (wiki article here)?
If so, were somebody on Barbelith to express agreement with NAMbLA, would we ban them as quickly as we did zoemancer?

*Their logo has a capital M and a lower-case b to symbolise 'men' and 'boys'. Yep, even their logo is gross and weird.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
23:41 / 22.04.06
Well, paedophilia is rape, is it not? I don't see how society accepting a wider range of consensual adult relationships in any way means that rape becomes more acceptable.

That's something that conservatives generally spout- if we allow homosexuality/polygamy/pre-marital sex etc. then rape must follow as a matter of course- but just because the conservatives put rape and paedophilia in the same place as homosexuality doesn't mean that's where it should be.
 
 
matthew.
23:48 / 22.04.06
I don't think it's a very black and white topic. There's plenty of cons to go around, however.

First of all, can a child make a mature and reasoned decision based on the sexual advances of an older man? I don't think so. I think children are naive enough to be manipulated into a sexual relationship, and that manipulation poisons any concept of love in that relationship.

I hesitate to defend NAMBLA, but for the ancient Greeks, it was a rite of passage for young men. When they are pubescent or prepubescent (I can't remember. Haus, remind me), older men compete for their attention. This young Greek god receives gifts and then chooses a lover. If I can remember my Greek, the relationship is called an eromenos - erastes relationship. The eromenos is the young man, and the erastes is the older man. It was meant to be a mutually beneficial situation in which the young man learns valuable life and business lessons from the mentor. The relationship was not always sexual, but when it was, it was strictly intercrural sex, non-penetrative sex using the thighs. Anal intercourse was seen as demeaning for the receiver of the penetration (because it likened the man to a woman, and woman were seen as inferior in Greek society)
[Haus. If I got any of this wrong, feel free to correct me. Not that you wouldn't anyway.]

That being said, it may have been a normal and healthy relationship for those times, but that doesn't mean it's normal by today's standards. Times have changed and so have social and sexual dynamics. A sexual relationship between a young boy and an older man, no matter how pedagogical, is still suspect.

It seems to be a relationship built on power and dominance. Whether that dominance be through age, or through "wisdom," the dynamic doesn't feel... safe, if you know what I mean.

But on the other hand, I can't say for sure if a young boy can reasonably and maturely make the decision to enter a sexual relationship with an older man without there being coercion from the older man. If there is no coercion whatsoever from the older man, well then... I don't know.
 
 
Jack Fear
00:07 / 23.04.06
(cross-posted to the Books thread)

Just to confuse the issue further, there's the distinction between pedophilia and pederasty. The former is a sexual attraction to pre-adolescents—to those whom we would label, without hesitation, as "children."

The latter, which was Ginsberg's proclivity, being a sexual attraction to adolescents (see also Lolita). Pederasty is a considerably more complicated matter, since a case can be made that adolescents, coming as they are into their own sexuality, can (at least theoretically) be equal and consensual partners in such relationships. I mean, it's not an argument that I necessarily buy, for a variety of reasons, but it is an argument that can be made.

NAMbLA is an umbrella group for both camps, but from what I understand, the community is sharply and bitterly split between pedophiles and pederasts. And therein lies the problem.

There was a moment there when it looked as if NAMbLA might become an intellectually respectable organization, standing up for the liberation of adolescent sexuality from mores that, in seeking to "protect" young people, instead deny them an expression of their sexual selves.

But the organization's refusal or inability to disentangle itself from its pedophile wing—who advocate a sexuality that is not, cannot be, consensual—crippled it.

In a way, it's kind of a shame. Adolescent sexuality is complex and multifarious, and one-size-fits-all approaches, like statutory rape and age-of-consent laws, present their own problems, unfairly criminalizing some legitimate sexual and emotional expression. By failing to engage with that complexity—by maintaining an absurd all-or-nothing hardline of its own—NAMbLA has all but guaranteed its own irrelevancy, guaranteed that it will remain a house divided against itself, and guaranteed that however the issue of adolescent sexual expression is settled, NAMbLA will be a part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:12 / 23.04.06
Socrates describes Alcibiades as at his most attractive when he can first grow a beard at the beginning of the Protagoras, citing Homer as authority - so probably late teens - but this is considered a bit late by others. What you've given, Matt, is a fairly common accounting of sympotic pederasty in classical Athens, but actually sources are thinner on the ground than you'd think. Kenneth Dover's Greek Homosexuality is good on this one.

However, Classical Athens also kept slaves, and I don't see a lot of virtue in that precedent either.
 
 
matthew.
00:23 / 23.04.06
(Dover is the main source I used in my class on Grk society)

I still think it's relevant, Haus, to the discussion, no matter how simplified I provided my example. It represents a possibly positive example of a consensual and healthy sexual relationship. I would consider it consensual because the eromenos chooses his mentor, but I can definitely see the argument that it cannot be consensual if society demands it of the eromenos. If it were not for NAMBLA's more predatory members, they would stand a better chance at respectability and growth into the mainstream. As JF stated above, it's a tug-of-war between the pederasts and the paedophiles.

Even if the Greeks had a slavery system, it still doesn't invalidate the other aspects of their beliefs and customs.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:05 / 23.04.06
Well, yes. And of course teenaged sexuality is complex fishcakes, but I suspect one very good way to avoid disrupting that complexity is not have older people trying to have sex with it. A system like that of the Netherlands, where sexual activity between teenagers is not criminal, but sexual activity between teenagers and not-teenagers (or, in fact, people over 16) is not, seeems more sensible. There will always be issues with any such system - many people are not emotionally ready to have sex at 16, and others are more emotionally ready at 14 or 15 than their peers - but we're talking about a best-fit to protect people from sexual exploitation here rather than something that will always act not only in the best interests but to the personal advantage of every person in the age group.

Of course, there is something very like the eromenos/erastes relationship in modern western society, except that it occurs without the collusion of the parents of the eromenos - the narrative of the young gay man fleeing to the city and meeting an older man, who becomes his lover but also his patron, introducing him to people and places - see something like Neil Bartlett's Ready to Catch him if he should Fall for an example of this. This is a few years on from the eromenos, and also from the sort of age organisations like NAMBLA are aiming to legitimate sex with. I've seen similar things happen in other quote-unquote interest groups.

However, I think the use of consensual has to be careful here. Being romantically pursued in classical Athens (not Greece - be careful of your use of terms) by a nobleman confers status, and status is sought by you and your family. That becomesa straight exchange - like sex for money. You can dress that up with the idea of unselfish education of the child, but... well, you would, wouldn't you, if you wanted to integrate sexual contact with younger men into society? Now, given how little status is conferred by sex with an older man in our society, I can't help but feel that the best way to express one's love for pre-legal boys would be to refrain from trying to introduce one to one's old chap.
 
 
*
03:36 / 23.04.06
I clarify this in my mind by drawing a distinction between psychological consent and legal consent. It seems perfectly reasonable that in the absence of being able to set a constant age at which all people automatically become psychologically capable of consent, instead there is an arbitrary line at which people become legally capable of consent. The problem is when these laws are disproportionately enforced against gay people.
 
 
illmatic
07:11 / 23.04.06
If it were not for NAMBLA's more predatory members, they would stand a better chance at respectability and growth into the mainstream.

To add something into the mix here, I think a big part of this question is about societal attitudes at any given time. I first encountered NaMBLA in the anarchist press of the late eighties, when they'd been around for a few years then. There were quite a lot of letters from people advocating "inter-generational sex" with positive editoral support - I don't think this would occur now, as there's a much greater degree of concern about the damaging effects of padeophila.

See also the Padeophile Infomation Exchange who acted as a contact support group for padeophiles in the 70s. In large part, their public openess about their desires can be said to have built on the sexual liberation of the 60s and 70s.

Edited to add: I think the wiki link is a bit suspect. IIRC some prominent members of PIE were prosectued for their sexual activities which that article doesn't mention.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
08:56 / 23.04.06
Well, pedophilia is rape, is it not? I don't see how society accepting a wider range of consensual adult relationships in any way means that rape becomes more acceptable.

In that pedophilic sex is considered rape as the child is unable to give consent to the act due to their age and maturity levels? Yes. I was wondering however, at what point a sexual behavior is considered pedophilic - for example, is their an age boundary that defines a person as a pedophile, or a someone who has committed statutory rape?

As a cross point as well, is anyone able to provide a source (psychological/medicinal) that reports the age that most people are sexualized (and by this I do not mean first sexual experience, but first awareness of sexuality).

For some reason I remember hearing that young girls (8+) test their sexuality out on their fathers. But I can't find any evidence of this as I'm at work and the interweb won't let me.
 
 
Ganesh
09:16 / 23.04.06
Yes, NAMBLA's been around for ages. Historically, I think it used to exist on the fringes of the gay political movements of the '70s and '80s but was always regarded with suspicion at best.

The 'slippery slope' argument is a familiar one, commonly rehashed every time a piece of legislature is mooted in favour of equal rights for homosexual people. In the relatively recent discussion of same-sex civil partnerships, for example, here and in the US, the spectre of "if we make it legal to marry a same-sex partner now, soon people will be marrying children or animals" - thus paedophilia and often bestiality are depicted as some sort of automatic/legal extension of homosexuality. This completely ignores the dimension of consent, which is absent from relationships with minors and, for that matter, animals.

The age at which children sexualise varies across cultures, subcultures and individuals and is, I think, not especially relevant to the question of consent. Consent is a legal concept, a line drawn in the sand by a particular society at a particular point: an average. Obviously there are going to be people who are physically and emotionally mature before any given age of consent, just as there will be others who take longer to do so. Point is, it's an average enshrined in legislature, for the protection of (it's assumed, the greater percentage of) minors - and, as such, must be respected.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
09:32 / 23.04.06
The 'slippery slope' argument is a familiar one

Which seems not to have made it over into Britain from America, bearing in mind that the main point that seemed to be being made throughout the last Presidential Election was about the effects of “Gay Marriage” on society, the recent civil partnership bill seemed to pass through the news media with hardly any comment.

Point is, it's an average enshrined in legislature, for the protection of (it's assumed, the greater percentage of) minors - and, as such, must be respected.

Is anyone (possibly with a legal background) able to clarify the workings behind the age of consent? In this country it's 16 for straight/lesbian people and 18 for gay men, but does it not differ in America based on the older partners age? Furthermore, does anyone know the reason for this disparity between gay/straight ages of consent?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
09:38 / 23.04.06
And here's a map of the different ages of consent from country to country.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:31 / 23.04.06
Is anyone (possibly with a legal background) able to clarify the workings behind the age of consent? In this country it's 16 for straight/lesbian people and 18 for gay men, but does it not differ in America based on the older partners age? Furthermore, does anyone know the reason for this disparity between gay/straight ages of consent?

At the risk of sounding obvious, history. Homosexual sex between men was criminalised in the Criminal Law Amendment act of 1885. The age of homosexual consent in the UK - or more precisely the age of consent between two men in a private location unaccompanied by others - was set at 21 when homosexuality was first legalised, on the recommendation of the Wolfenden Report (1957). This is the Sexual Offences act (1967). Note - at this point gay sex is still illegal in Scotland, and remains so until fucking 1980.

In 1994 a bill was table providing the options of keeping the age of consent for gay men at 21, bringing it in line with the age of heterosexual consent at 16 or, as a compromise, lowering it to 18. The compromise is gone for, as the lowering to 16 is considered unacceptable by the Commons at that point, but the setting of the age of consent at 21 is acknowledged to be untenable, as it criminalises acts between people who are in all other ways considered to be legal adults. This remained an unlovely fudge, and one that it would in the end get knocked over by the European Court of Human Rights - in 1997 - so in 1998 an amendment to the Sexual Offences act to lower the age of consent to 16 is tabled. The Lords, headed by the odious Baroness Young, fight a vicious rearguard action, and eventually the bill is forced through by the Parliament Act in 2000.

The US is set up in a federal system, with each state setting ages of consent - in some states a banding system is practised as it is in the Nertherlands. Federal Law Enforcement defines a minor as 18 for the purposes of use of interstate communication for enticing or arranging sex, and for transportation across state lines for sex, but probaqbly only if the sex you then have is also illegal accoridng to the age of consent laws in the state you end up in, which is a grey area. The firm line for engaging in interstate or extra-state commerce for sexual purposes is a sliding scale where a minor is defined as 12 or over and under 16, with the older party 4 years older - so, a 15-year old haviing sex with a 14 -year old would not be prosecutable for a federal offence as long as they were legally able to have sex in the state they travelled to, whereas a 17-year old having sex with a 13-year old, I think, would be. This aims to prevent clashes between state and federal age of consent laws - Pennsylvania, for example, has much the same "16 if there is a 4-year or greater age gap between participants, 13 in all other cases)" rule.

Of course, this is generally the age of consent for straight sex - gay sex is another question again.
 
 
Ganesh
11:49 / 23.04.06
Of course, this is generally the age of consent for straight sex - gay sex is another question again.

And potentially a more problematic entity to define...
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
13:46 / 23.04.06
Sorry if this thread has just turned into the “Educate Math on a Range of Subjects” thread, but I’m learning, and by God am I interested.

Am I right in thinking that the age of consent for lesbian sexual relationships is 16 too? Furthermore, was lesbian sex illegal in the same sex that male homosexual sex was, or was it just frowned upon by society?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:51 / 23.04.06
Lesbian sex did not exist in British law until the passage of the amendment in 2000, I think, when the age of consent was set to 16.
 
 
Jack Fear
17:07 / 23.04.06
Legend has it that lesbianism was not prosecuted in the same way that male homosexuality (i.e., "sodomy") was because Queen Victoria struck all references to it from the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, on the grounds that such a thing could not possibly exist, because she'd certainly never heard of it.

Almost certainly apocryphal, but interesting insight into how society regards female sexuality in general (see also: why is there no mother/son equivalent to the Purity Ball?).
 
 
diz
06:40 / 24.04.06
Note - at this point gay sex is still illegal in Scotland, and remains so until fucking 1980.

Gay sex was still illegal in many parts of the US until Lawrence vs Texas in fucking 2003.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:56 / 24.04.06
The Queen Victoria and Lesbianism thing is apocraphal, but I can't find my source right now. From what I recall, it was that Parliamentarians didn't put it in the Bill because they didn't want to alert women to the concept of having sex with anyone other than their husbands.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
15:43 / 24.04.06
Another point, re: societal attitudes & inter-generational sex is that in the UK, the minimum age for marriage - currently 18, is relatively modern. It was set at 18 in 1969. Prior to that it was 16 (for both males & females) as established by an Act in 1929, and prior to that it was 14 for boys and 12 for girls.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
16:34 / 24.04.06
Well, paedophilia is rape, is it not?

Legba, I think that’s a rather loaded statement. Legally, yes, I’d agree with your interpretation. However, based on the status of the law as it stands, a 17 year old and a 25 year old could not have sex in the United States without automatically being considered rape, regardless of any circumstances relevant to the situation. This, in my opinion, is moronicly simplistic, however it is currently necessary because of the way the law is designed. Since the legal system can’t be designed to accommodate things like context of the act and maturity of the actual individuals involved, it is inherently imperfect.

Now, while legally all pedophilia is considered rape, ethics and morality are different. If, in the above situation the 17 year old is intellectually and emotionally aware of what s/he is doing and is consenting, I don’t think you can ethically say it is the exact same thing as a man forcing himself upon a woman.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:34 / 24.04.06
From what I recall, it was that Parliamentarians didn't put it in the Bill because they didn't want to alert women to the concept of having sex with anyone other than their husbands.

Going off at a bit of a tangent, that's interesting in that it implies the legislature bought into the idea that banning stuff makes it look cool...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:02 / 24.04.06
However, based on the status of the law as it stands, a 17 year old and a 25 year old could not have sex in the United States without automatically being considered rape, regardless of any circumstances relevant to the situation.

I don't think that's true. In fact, I'm pretty sure that that's wrong. Except in.. um.. Wyoming? Possibly Arizona? Or in cases where the 25-year old is in a position of authority in some other states.

Also, I think you'd be very hard-pushed to find somebody who would accept the definition of "paedophile" as "a 25-year old who is sexually attracted to a 17-year old". Paedophilia is a paraphilia, whereas non-consensual sex is a legal definition, as is sex rendered illegal by the age of one or more party. So, the statement "legally, all peadophilia is rape" makes no sense. Legally, all sex between people who are not legally able to have sex is illegal. In some cases, where that illegality is due to the absence of consent, that sex is rape. In other cases it is gross indecency with a minor, or a number of other offences depending on the circumstances, the age of the participants, a variety of other factors and the penal code of the country in which it occurs. Most sexual acts between an adult and a minor are illegal in most countries, because as soon as you start saying "unless the younger party is emotionally and sexually mature and competent", then guess who's going to start saying that the younger party is emotionally and sexually mature?

That's right.
 
 
ibis the being
20:35 / 24.04.06
Look at this handy-dandy chart I found of consent ages by US state. It's five years old but I doubt there have been too many changes.

This site has more concise answers to some age of consent questions, including -

When the relationship in question has issues of power involved, such as: teacher to student, guardian to youth, boss to employee, coach to team member, clergy to congregation member, counsellor to client or doctor to patient, the law in North America and the U.K. is very clear - consent can not occur. It is not so clear in other countries. In some countries homosexual sex is seriously limited or even illegal. In the USA, some states outlaw certain sex acts that may be legal in the state next door. The most common "illegal" sex act is sodomy (usually; anal sex). In some parts of the USA, this act is not legal no matter how old you are.

If you and your partner are both UNDER the age of consent, neither of you can legally consent to sex and under the law, you are both committing an offence in having sex (although this type of offence is rarely charged). If you are at the age of consent but your partner is OVER the age of majority, even if you yell yes at the top of your lungs and bring the condom, your partner could be guilty of Statutory Rape. If you are at the age of consent, but not at the age of majority, and you have sex with somebody under the age of consent, you too could be guilty of Statutory Rape.

-- from about.com.

So, yes, in a state where the age of consent is 18, a 25 year old could be convicted of statuatory rape for having sex with a 17 year old.

I have to admit I was astounded to see homosexual sex listed "illegal" for Massachusetts. I'll try to dig up whether that's still true. I never knew that ages of consent differed for same-sex relationships in the US.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
20:40 / 24.04.06
California, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Arizona have 18 as the age of consent, and under US law any citizens traveling the world need to be 18 to consent to sex.

Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington and Wyoming have the law mentioned above about the age gap (16 if 4 years or less, 18 otherwise) so in 13 states the 25/17 year old situation would be illegal. This does not take into account whether or not the couple crossed state lines, which would be (I think) a federal offense for moving a minor state to state.

I do think an important item is what Haus sad, that a 25 year old sexually attracted to a 17 year old is not likely to be considered a paedophile. I always understood the term to apply to prepubescent children, but I may have been misinformed.
 
 
ibis the being
20:43 / 24.04.06
Addendum to my last post - MA did strike down its sodomy laws in Feb 2002 - see GLAD's criminal cases page.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
20:43 / 24.04.06
Cross post with Ibis.

Also, the illegality of homosexual relations in Mass. is likely out of date, because I think it was within the last 5 years that the supreme court ruled that consentual sodomy was no longer illegal. This site, which I used for my post above, lists the law as inavlidated, meaning it is on the books but no longer enforced.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
20:57 / 24.04.06
Sorry, you’re right that a 17 year old sleeping with a 25 year old would not be an act of pedophilia. But in most states (including my own) it would still be staitory, which is more the point I was trying to make. I think I was trying to make two points at once but only confused things. Sorry. I was trying to bring up age of consent laws and how they’re likely to be relivant to this conversation.

However, as to Legba’s comment on “pedophila=rape?” made me look it up on wikipedia. Officially: “Pedophilia (American English), or pædophilia/paedophilia (Commonwealth English), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children”

Also:
“In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote people who are sexually attracted to adolescents, as well as people who have engaged in sexual activity with a child. In countries where the legal age of consent is lower, like France or Brazil, the mainstream media avoid using the terms pedophilia or pedophile to refer to consented relationships between adults and adolescents.

Some scientists refer to a sexual interest in adolescents as ephebophilia.”

I think this explains the minor bit of cross-Atlantic misunderstanding. When I think of the word, I’m thinking “desire towards a minor”, as opposed to the more accurate “desire towards a pre-pubescent minor”.

So now I know.
 
 
Ganesh
21:20 / 24.04.06
I'd agree with Haus that it's important here to avoid conflating legal terminology and diagnostic 'illness labels'.
 
 
one point, oh
14:55 / 25.04.06
This thread seems to have become more of a debate about the legalities, but, playing devil’s advocate; I am curious, do we believe sexual attraction to a prepubescent minor is absolutely morally wrong? I mean without even muddling in the matter of intercourse is it acceptable for an older man to find a young boy ‘sexy’?

And if the issue is solely the inability to consent, is it acceptable to find mature brain dead person sexually attractive? Or an elderly person with dementia ‘sexy’? What about those with Down’s syndrome?

And if the issue is the ‘unnatural’ nature of being attracted to one not fully formed, is it unacceptable to find deformity sexy? How about prostheses? How about people with hormone imbalances who remain child like in appearance long after their age of consent?

It has become increasingly acceptable for pornographers to flirt with the taboo, for example whilst rape is wholly unacceptable S&M roleplays of rape have become permissible. So, given that it is permissible to be attracted to rape, why is it so impermissible to be attracted to children?

Pornographers have long since pushed ‘teen-sex’ to the fore; there is a high demand for it. They take girls just turned 18 and take pictures of them with lollipops and schoolgirls uniforms, they have young men in staged extracurricular sex-education with their greying male teachers. They skirt on the very edges of taboo because they know that fetishists are often attracted to the ‘exciting’; to the morally questionable. But also because beneath that there is the appeal of youth; the corruption of innocence and taut bodies entice an audience. Taken to its extreme it leads to paedophilia, but is the attraction on its own (without the rape) so morally repugnant?
 
 
ibis the being
15:52 / 25.04.06
Very good questions, Dovetailed. My initial response is that I'm not sure attraction or sexual excitement by itself can be moral/immoral or ethical/inethical - it just is. Perhaps a psychological "diagnosis" can be made in some cases, but I don't think that equates with a judgement of morality, and moreover we've seen how sexual diagnoses in particular tend to evolve as society evolves. I would suspect that it's whether and how one acts on one's sexual impulses that can be viewed in terms of morality or ethics.
 
 
one point, oh
16:10 / 25.04.06
The old ‘action makes the man’ line of reasoning, eh? Then, if the attraction itself is morally ambivalent, other questions are presented; assuming no children were hurt could naked pictures of children be morally used as pornography? I assume we will say no due to the fact exploitation of a fashion is taking place; the children are unaware of what they are being used for. But what about paedophilic stories, pictures, dolls or computer games? What about sexually admiring a child from afar? Lusting or even obsessing over hir? Where do you draw the line of what constitutes an unreasonable or immoral action?

It may be worth you folks looking at this article on lolicon; it skits over a couple of the issues I am raising.
 
 
one point, oh
16:17 / 25.04.06
Having actually only bothered to fully read the article after posting I might be prone to question its objectivity with lines like “there is no evidence to support these claims.” ... Having said that it is still worth reading for another point of view, but lets try to avoid getting bogged down in the legalities again; I am considerably more interested in the ethics.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply