| |
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000 02:48:54 GMT, Christopher Weeks
<clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> >
> > The problem is, when does something have a victim? For adults this
> > quite clear -- only when there is not consent.
>
> I'm not convinced that it's all that clear cut. I have observed
> age-peers of mine who are markedly less worldly and make stupid
> decisions about their lives. At what magic age is one fully capable of
> making decisions such that we can definitively claim that their consent
> is enough to make it victimless. But that's kind of a philosophical
> ramble. At some point we have to give people control over their lives.
Exactly. That's why I used "adults" rather than "18+".
> Do you mean from a legal or an ethical stance?
Ethical. I'm for the moment entirely uninterested in anything legal
that may or may not coincide.
> Legally, it depends on if he acquired those rights. Ethically...hmmm.
> I suppose it is a function of society to some extent. I get the idea
> that Italians would react differently than would Southern Baptists
> (stereotypical ones, anyway). My personal stance is that if the child
> and the parents all agree that it's cool and the publication venue as
> well as the subject matter is nonsexual in nature there is certainly no
> problem. A labial close-up, OTOH, is questionable.
I probably agree.
> Yeah...I don't know. If everyone would relax about such things, then
> this would be easier to decide. It shouldn't hurt a future career, and
> people shouldn't think a simple nude is indecent.
Indeed.
>
> > I won't go into the rather icky and extremely controversial "studies"
> > that "show" sex-with-kids isn't necessarily harmful to the children.
>
> My mother has been verbally battered on several occasions by suggesting • By, or for?
> that _maybe_ much of the harm done to children who are victims of non
> violent molestation comes from the aftermath and how everyone freaks out
> and treats them differently and sends them to counciling and makes them
> take the stand and stuff. This is by nature an extremely controversial subject.
Yes. And I would like to see some real proof either way.
Not only make them take the stand, but against (possibly) beloved
"uncle" to put him in prison as well.
>
> Are the studies to which to refer not really studies, but nasty kiddie
> freaks trying to justify their sick behavior? Or what?
Well, the most famous is one man who (posthumously) published a report
about over fourhundred sexual encounters with 12-minus year old boys.
For obvious reasons, his motives are suspected to not have been
entirely pure.
The short answer: I just don't know. They could be either one.
Emotionally, I don't think pre-pubescent kids are ready for sex.
One other thing that's worrying is that there is a very real
possibility of abuse. Children are not capable of defending
themselves.
The best way to solve the problems may be to "an as ye harm none, do
as ye wish", but impress upon children that if they are harmed, they
can do things about it, like tell teacher/doctor/cnfidante.
Thorny.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) I'm not convinced that it's all that clear cut. I have observed age-peers of mine who are markedly less worldly and make stupid decisions about their lives. At what magic age is one fully capable of making decisions such that we can (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
