Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and Pederasty

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:14:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I have a question first...
Is having homicidal thoughts immoral, or just acting on them?
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:15:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:14:04 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I have a question first...
Is having homicidal thoughts immoral, or just acting on them?

Just acting on them, and even that has blurry lines. If I kill someone out of revenge in a political vacuum, is that immoral? I don't think so...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:20:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No thought is immoral. It is only how you respond to those thoughts that can be ethically judged.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:22:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:15:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:14:04 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I have a question first...
Is having homicidal thoughts immoral, or just acting on them?

Just acting on them, and even that has blurry lines. If I kill someone out of revenge in a political vacuum, is that immoral? I don't think so...

*In my opinion,* having thoughts of it, could be as a result of maybe something mental, or maybe because it was once conventional in some cultures. But the actual act would be ... immoral because some "victims" of pedophilia may not be old enough to consent... So having thoughts is fine, but acting on it is not... But that's just my opinion...
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:40:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:22:48 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:15:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:14:04 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I have a question first...
Is having homicidal thoughts immoral, or just acting on them?

Just acting on them, and even that has blurry lines. If I kill someone out of revenge in a political vacuum, is that immoral? I don't think so...

*In my opinion,* having thoughts of it, could be as a result of maybe something mental, or maybe because it was once conventional in some cultures. But the actual act would be ... immoral because some "victims" of pedophilia may not be old enough to consent... So having thoughts is fine, but acting on it is not... But that's just my opinion...

Consent is just a legal construct, a line in the sand. While the line needs to be draws, the actual capacity for consent is based on mental maturity, not age.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 3:48:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I don't think thoughts (standing alone) are immoral, as a rule. I think desires can lead to unethical/immoral consequences, and those desires can be evaluated on the basis of their tendency to evoke unethical/immoral consequences. But again, the thought, in and of itself, is morally neutral because all thoughts are morally neutral.

While I also think it's dangerous (or at least not good) to sort thoughts into categories of "moral" or otherwise, I want to be clear to distinguish thought standing alone, from thoughts paired with actions and choices whereby those thoughts become the "intent" to do something.

An intent to do an immoral thing, paired with actions and choices that are a "substantial step" towards bringing about that immoral outcome, are immoral. While all of these things exist on a sliding scale of immorality (with the former-most being the least immoral, and the latter-most being the most) there is a difference between (1) a thought (the mental consideration of something), and (2) an intent to do something, and (3) especially a thought which is an intent to do some immoral thing, and an action which is a substantial step towards bringing about an immoral consequence, and then the immoral consequence itself.

However, pederasty, hebephilia, and pedophilia are different things. I think I've ordered them in order of the least immoral to the most immoral, although that is not to say that pederasty is "moral" or whatever, or even "morally plausible." It's just "less worse" than the other two.

The reason that it's less worse is because there is a greater likelihood that a person engaging in pederasty (homosexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male (meaning someone -adult- over the age of 18, with someone -adolescent- between 14 and 25) could be a genuinely consensual relationship. I should note that the term "adolescent" is something of a strange word, like the word "adult" because science tells us that someone whose prefrontal cortex is not fully developed is someone who should be considered an adolescent, but the word "adult" is defined by the law is someone who is over 18.

Thus, there is some overlap between "adult" and "adolescent" which makes for some semantic weirdness, in that a person can be lawfully an adult but medically an adolescent at the same time. So, a 30 year old dating a 24 year old could be in a pedarastic relationship... but so could a 30 year old and a 14 year old -which I think we can universally agree is not appropriate.

With hebephilia, that is considerably less likely, because you're dealing with a situation where someone over 25 is interested in a relationship with a very young but pubescent teenager. So, like a 30 year old and a 12-13 year old. That is without question not appropriate. With pedophilia, that's just someone who is legally an adult who is sexually turned on by prepubescent children... again, which we can universally scorn.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 3:57:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

Bearing the distinctions between pederasty and other models of sexual whatever (see generally my post above), I would suggest that as a rule pederasty (least worst of the three you cited) is still something that I have a whole lot of problems with, for ethical reasons. While pederasty doesn't always have to fit this specific manifestation I'm about to describe, it certainly does often, even to the extent that it exists now, and it is seriously bad.

Freeborn Roman male citizens (upper class males) would take slave boys (sort of like the modern equivalent of child rent boys or young adolescent male prostitutes) as their "property." In that way, they became sex slaves. Even while they led materially privileged lives, they were still property, which is offensive to their most basic human dignity.

Last weekend I met a guy (19 year old guy) who fled a broken home, and a horrific living situation, and got a "boyfriend/Daddy" who was a very wealthy European financier. He (the 19 year old) is treated by his "boyfriend/Daddy" like complete trash. I felt terrible for him. He wore nice clothes and was well taken care of, but his life was empty. That's what modern pederasty looks like. It's tragic.

To be clear, if that's what people want, that's their business not mine. But, I would not accept a 16 year old being forced into that situation, or a 17 year old. An 18 year old... fine. They're legally an adult, but even then... it's heart wrenching to see.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 3:59:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:14:04 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I have a question first...
Is having homicidal thoughts immoral, or just acting on them?

Homicide is just another human being dying. So, wanting someone else to die is fine. There's a difference between having homicidal thoughts, and, for example, murderous thoughts. But again, thought is not action.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:08:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 3:48:03 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I don't think thoughts (standing alone) are immoral, as a rule. I think desires can lead to unethical/immoral consequences, and those desires can be evaluated on the basis of their tendency to evoke unethical/immoral consequences. But again, the thought, in and of itself, is morally neutral because all thoughts are morally neutral.

I'd agree with this. Thoughts themselves are not moral or immoral. They just are. Acting on thoughts, however, is not morally neutral.

If there were a way for pedophiles to channel their feelings in a way that did not involve real-life kids in any step of the process, I might support it, if only to give them a harmless way to vent. I am not sure something like this exists; I haven't done enough research. That being said, if it does exist, I would seriously consider legalizing it.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:20:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:08:36 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/29/2015 3:48:03 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I don't think thoughts (standing alone) are immoral, as a rule. I think desires can lead to unethical/immoral consequences, and those desires can be evaluated on the basis of their tendency to evoke unethical/immoral consequences. But again, the thought, in and of itself, is morally neutral because all thoughts are morally neutral.

I'd agree with this. Thoughts themselves are not moral or immoral. They just are. Acting on thoughts, however, is not morally neutral.

If there were a way for pedophiles to channel their feelings in a way that did not involve real-life kids in any step of the process, I might support it, if only to give them a harmless way to vent. I am not sure something like this exists; I haven't done enough research. That being said, if it does exist, I would seriously consider legalizing it.

The theme of your post is that society should find a way to reconcile its interests (protecting children) with the fact that various forms of people with dangerous sexual impulses exist, and I agree with that.

What I'd add to that is that I would take shows like "The Hunt with John Walsh" off the air, because it is seriously deleterious to society's interests at large. I know Walsh's story and it's heartbreaking, but his sob-story is not a license for him to contribute to the maintenance of a culture which more or less prevents any progress in the way of actually preventing the exploitation of children on the macro scale.

I know that's an incredibly bold claim, and maybe I'll take the time to talk about it some other time.... but it's really not complicated to think through. Walsh does two things: he creates the kind of culture where anyone who is genuinely interested in working with kids is automatically on notice that he could be labeled, intentionally or even mistakenly, by the intransigence of some stupid and/or pathological kid (I've seen high school girls do this to male teachers on two occasions), and he creates the kind of culture where people who actually have that predilection will not seek help, and will thus eventually hurt someone else because they never got the chance to get their impulses under control.

Walsh may contribute to locking three or four predators who have already hurt people up, but the problem is that he is ignoring the bigger problem, while culturally exacerbating the sociocultural conditions that contribute to the very existence of the problem he at least claims to desire to remediate. It's the kind of tragic irony that you expect to see in Shakespeare, almost.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:27:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:20:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 4:08:36 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/29/2015 3:48:03 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I don't think thoughts (standing alone) are immoral, as a rule. I think desires can lead to unethical/immoral consequences, and those desires can be evaluated on the basis of their tendency to evoke unethical/immoral consequences. But again, the thought, in and of itself, is morally neutral because all thoughts are morally neutral.

I'd agree with this. Thoughts themselves are not moral or immoral. They just are. Acting on thoughts, however, is not morally neutral.

If there were a way for pedophiles to channel their feelings in a way that did not involve real-life kids in any step of the process, I might support it, if only to give them a harmless way to vent. I am not sure something like this exists; I haven't done enough research. That being said, if it does exist, I would seriously consider legalizing it.

The theme of your post is that society should find a way to reconcile its interests (protecting children) with the fact that various forms of people with dangerous sexual impulses exist, and I agree with that.

I am glad. I know a lot of people wouldn't, and I think it's important to be as pragmatic as possible within our moral framework to resolve issues.

I've actually never seen the TV show you referenced, so I am not sure I am well-placed to remark on that, however.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:30:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:27:53 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/29/2015 4:20:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 4:08:36 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/29/2015 3:48:03 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I don't think thoughts (standing alone) are immoral, as a rule. I think desires can lead to unethical/immoral consequences, and those desires can be evaluated on the basis of their tendency to evoke unethical/immoral consequences. But again, the thought, in and of itself, is morally neutral because all thoughts are morally neutral.

I'd agree with this. Thoughts themselves are not moral or immoral. They just are. Acting on thoughts, however, is not morally neutral.

If there were a way for pedophiles to channel their feelings in a way that did not involve real-life kids in any step of the process, I might support it, if only to give them a harmless way to vent. I am not sure something like this exists; I haven't done enough research. That being said, if it does exist, I would seriously consider legalizing it.

The theme of your post is that society should find a way to reconcile its interests (protecting children) with the fact that various forms of people with dangerous sexual impulses exist, and I agree with that.

I am glad. I know a lot of people wouldn't, and I think it's important to be as pragmatic as possible within our moral framework to resolve issues.

I don't like the idea of it at all... but I understand that we're at a point where something's got to give, and the stupid things that society and law enforcement are doing now are not stemming the problem; it's exacerbating it.

So, my willingness to try other options does not come from any sympathy for pedophiles or others who are of that same general sort... it's from a practical concern for social welfare.

I've actually never seen the TV show you referenced, so I am not sure I am well-placed to remark on that, however.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:32:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:30:49 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 4:27:53 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/29/2015 4:20:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 4:08:36 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/29/2015 3:48:03 AM, YYW wrote:
I don't think thoughts (standing alone) are immoral, as a rule. I think desires can lead to unethical/immoral consequences, and those desires can be evaluated on the basis of their tendency to evoke unethical/immoral consequences. But again, the thought, in and of itself, is morally neutral because all thoughts are morally neutral.

I'd agree with this. Thoughts themselves are not moral or immoral. They just are. Acting on thoughts, however, is not morally neutral.

If there were a way for pedophiles to channel their feelings in a way that did not involve real-life kids in any step of the process, I might support it, if only to give them a harmless way to vent. I am not sure something like this exists; I haven't done enough research. That being said, if it does exist, I would seriously consider legalizing it.

The theme of your post is that society should find a way to reconcile its interests (protecting children) with the fact that various forms of people with dangerous sexual impulses exist, and I agree with that.

I am glad. I know a lot of people wouldn't, and I think it's important to be as pragmatic as possible within our moral framework to resolve issues.

I don't like the idea of it at all... but I understand that we're at a point where something's got to give, and the stupid things that society and law enforcement are doing now are not stemming the problem; it's exacerbating it.

So, my willingness to try other options does not come from any sympathy for pedophiles or others who are of that same general sort... it's from a practical concern for social welfare.

I have some sympathy for them, because I don't believe they chose to have the feelings they do. I can understand it must be hard to not act, though--however strong the urge--it doesn't ever justify acting on that urge. That being said, I feel sorry for the situation they are placed in.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:49:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 3:57:26 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

Bearing the distinctions between pederasty and other models of sexual whatever (see generally my post above), I would suggest that as a rule pederasty (least worst of the three you cited) is still something that I have a whole lot of problems with, for ethical reasons. While pederasty doesn't always have to fit this specific manifestation I'm about to describe, it certainly does often, even to the extent that it exists now, and it is seriously bad.

Freeborn Roman male citizens (upper class males) would take slave boys (sort of like the modern equivalent of child rent boys or young adolescent male prostitutes) as their "property." In that way, they became sex slaves. Even while they led materially privileged lives, they were still property, which is offensive to their most basic human dignity.

Last weekend I met a guy (19 year old guy) who fled a broken home, and a horrific living situation, and got a "boyfriend/Daddy" who was a very wealthy European financier. He (the 19 year old) is treated by his "boyfriend/Daddy" like complete trash. I felt terrible for him. He wore nice clothes and was well taken care of, but his life was empty. That's what modern pederasty looks like. It's tragic.

To be clear, if that's what people want, that's their business not mine. But, I would not accept a 16 year old being forced into that situation, or a 17 year old. An 18 year old... fine. They're legally an adult, but even then... it's heart wrenching to see.

I was referring more to the ritualized pederasty of ancient Greek cultures, often tied into the education system, than I was to the more hedonistic and largely domination-based Roman practices.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:57:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 3:48:03 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I don't think thoughts (standing alone) are immoral, as a rule. I think desires can lead to unethical/immoral consequences, and those desires can be evaluated on the basis of their tendency to evoke unethical/immoral consequences. But again, the thought, in and of itself, is morally neutral because all thoughts are morally neutral.

While I also think it's dangerous (or at least not good) to sort thoughts into categories of "moral" or otherwise, I want to be clear to distinguish thought standing alone, from thoughts paired with actions and choices whereby those thoughts become the "intent" to do something.

Yeah, I agree with this. It's more useful for society to view actions as immoral in the context of how they affect other members of society, and it is the responsibility of each person to monitor and order their own intentions in ways which lead allow them to function within that delineated set of acceptable actions.

An intent to do an immoral thing, paired with actions and choices that are a "substantial step" towards bringing about that immoral outcome, are immoral. While all of these things exist on a sliding scale of immorality (with the former-most being the least immoral, and the latter-most being the most) there is a difference between (1) a thought (the mental consideration of something), and (2) an intent to do something, and (3) especially a thought which is an intent to do some immoral thing, and an action which is a substantial step towards bringing about an immoral consequence, and then the immoral consequence itself.

However, pederasty, hebephilia, and pedophilia are different things. I think I've ordered them in order of the least immoral to the most immoral, although that is not to say that pederasty is "moral" or whatever, or even "morally plausible." It's just "less worse" than the other two.

The reason that it's less worse is because there is a greater likelihood that a person engaging in pederasty (homosexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male (meaning someone -adult- over the age of 18, with someone -adolescent- between 14 and 25) could be a genuinely consensual relationship. I should note that the term "adolescent" is something of a strange word, like the word "adult" because science tells us that someone whose prefrontal cortex is not fully developed is someone who should be considered an adolescent, but the word "adult" is defined by the law is someone who is over 18.

Thus, there is some overlap between "adult" and "adolescent" which makes for some semantic weirdness, in that a person can be lawfully an adult but medically an adolescent at the same time. So, a 30 year old dating a 24 year old could be in a pedarastic relationship... but so could a 30 year old and a 14 year old -which I think we can universally agree is not appropriate.

Yeah, I definitely agree with this.

With hebephilia, that is considerably less likely, because you're dealing with a situation where someone over 25 is interested in a relationship with a very young but pubescent teenager. So, like a 30 year old and a 12-13 year old. That is without question not appropriate. With pedophilia, that's just someone who is legally an adult who is sexually turned on by prepubescent children... again, which we can universally scorn.

Do you think that beauty standards are moving in this direction? I mean, ephebophilia is pretty much the norm at this point, and the standard of what is 'desirable' seems to be trending younger and younger as time goes one. 'Youth-worship' is an undercurrent that I find particularly disturbing in modern American culture.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 5:00:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:20:21 AM, YYW wrote:

What I'd add to that is that I would take shows like "The Hunt with John Walsh" off the air, because it is seriously deleterious to society's interests at large. I know Walsh's story and it's heartbreaking, but his sob-story is not a license for him to contribute to the maintenance of a culture which more or less prevents any progress in the way of actually preventing the exploitation of children on the macro scale.

I know that's an incredibly bold claim, and maybe I'll take the time to talk about it some other time.... but it's really not complicated to think through. Walsh does two things: he creates the kind of culture where anyone who is genuinely interested in working with kids is automatically on notice that he could be labeled, intentionally or even mistakenly, by the intransigence of some stupid and/or pathological kid (I've seen high school girls do this to male teachers on two occasions), and he creates the kind of culture where people who actually have that predilection will not seek help, and will thus eventually hurt someone else because they never got the chance to get their impulses under control.

Walsh may contribute to locking three or four predators who have already hurt people up, but the problem is that he is ignoring the bigger problem, while culturally exacerbating the sociocultural conditions that contribute to the very existence of the problem he at least claims to desire to remediate. It's the kind of tragic irony that you expect to see in Shakespeare, almost.

I agree with this completely. Demonizing pedophiles doesn't accomplish anything positive, it's just an example of mental masturbation typical of 'othering' on a massive scale.

Also, we should have learned from the day-care scare of the 80s and 90s just how susceptible a child's testimony is to leading questions or just unintended, non-verbal cues from a biased interrogator. Unfortunately, we have memories which are far to short, and are often entirely too credulous when it comes to victim testimony.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 8:18:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

- Nice thread. I was going to start something like this soon. You beat me to it.

Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them?

- I am going to be speaking from my worldview. So, I believe Thoughts can be immoral, though a person is not necessarily accountable for them. Here are two points to be made:

1. Thoughts can be moral or immoral, either:
i. Passively, which is called Ghafla, in which the person is (or is not) in a state of remembrance or awareness of God.
ii. Actively, which is called Fikr, in which the person is thinking of doing (or not doing) something. For instance, thinking of insulting a person is immoral, unless one retracts it. Similarly, thinking of doing immoral actions is immoral, unless retracted.

2. Accountability for Thoughts, on the other hand, is not necessarily linked to their immorality. Maybe you remember a formula I mentioned before about how we perceive the Human Action process:
> Khatira (flow) >>> Fikra (thought) >>> Raghba (instinctive readiness) >>> 'Azima (intellectual resolution) >>> Q'udra (ability) >>> Fi'l (action).
> The accountability starts from either:
i. 'Azima (intellectual resolution), in case the Act is moral, in which case the person is rewarded.
ii. Q'udra (actual ability), in case the Act is immoral, in which case the person is sinning.

[ If you recall the list of things that invalidates Accountability (undiscernibility, hardship, coercion, necessity...), you'll realise that they also have to do with the above process getting disrupted ]

- In conclusion, we believe that any persisting sexual thoughts outside marriage are to some degree immoral, even if they are not accounted for. It's an inner struggle that a person goes through, him/her against his/her unlawful carnal desires. However, unless the person has the determination & the ability to act on these thoughts, he/she is not accountable, thus not sinning. Also, there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about Sex. If it's lawful, it's considered moral & is rewarded. If it's unlawful it's considered immoral & is sinful. The Prophet said: "Do you not see that if one were to act upon his desire in an unlawful manner then he would be deserving of punishment? Likewise, if he were to act upon it in a lawful manner then he will be deserving of a reward.".

What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present?

- I think Sexuality is a social design, thus varies from one society to another. The basis of it is rooted in Nature (instinct, biology), but the rest is acquired & thus wholly circumstantial. This is evident by the fact that Nubility, Incest & Sexual Orientations do vary between different societies in different regions, or with different cultures, & within the same society in different times. Point being, different circumstances => different social design => different sexuality.

- Speaking from my own worldview, sexual desires are considered an Instinctive Act (Ghariza), though are usually prone to become Balyyah ('addictions'). So, in a society where a particular sexual act is favoured (i.e. practiced frequently), it (the act) is prone to become a Balyyah, & eventually a Norm, & thus bound to spread even further & probably become an esteemed or holy act. Reciprocally, in a society where a particular sexual act is prejudiced against, it (the act) will not have a chance to become a Balyyah, not in a wide scale at least, & thus it will constitute an anomaly. This relates to what we refer to as Milkyah (Possession, if you recall), in which the social design dictates who fit in & who is alienated. Since the individual is expected to act a certain way to fit in, his inner disposition to possess the approval of society (or to fit in) will impose on him following the society's approvals & prejudices.

- Following the above observations, Pedophilia is not inherently harmful or not harmful, thus would be regarded differently in different social designs. The concept is quite recent actually. In our worldview, Pedophilia, as in other 'philia', would be classified as a Balyyah. Now, the fact that this particular 'philia' is widely considered as a mental illness in the West, as opposed to other orientations, stems from the western modern social design, not from its nature.

Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards?

- I think it's pretty clear that these rules are subject to the social design, thus arbitrary. Take France for example, between 1945 & 2006 Nubility (or age of majority) went from 13 to 18 (that's 60 years, a tiny fraction of the nation's History). & this is a western country that has been experiencing late schooling & late marriages since the 19th century. Nubility in India went from 10 to 18 in less than century. This is due to the standardised model of modern society. Everybody has to go to school for such & such years & then find a job... Nothing of the sort was the case societies prior to the 20th century. Subsequently, maturity & adulthood are seen in much later ages than in previous societies. If you look at History, people were getting sh*t done at ages like 10, 12 & 15. Harun ar-Rashid was appointed caliph when he was 18, & at that age ruled one of the greatest Empires in History. al-'Adid ruled when he was 14. Muhammad al-Fatih when he was 12. ash-Shafi'i was licensed to give fatwa when he was 12. Ibn Sina wrote his first work when he was 15. al-Bukhari wrote his gigantic book The Great History (printed in 80 volumes) when he was 17!!!! 17, God damn it.

- More importantly, raising the age of consent does nothing to prevent sexual relations between genders, it just separates them into two classes +18 & -18 (depending on the age of consent). Which brings me to my second point, & that is, having an socio-legal structure systematically designed against practices such as Pedophilia will only naturally lead to the prejudice we find ourselves in, today in the West. That does not mean it's not justified, it should be, at least in the West. But, it is also subject to culturally relative standards as well.

- Also, there is this phenomenon of 'minors' becoming a forbidden taboo for adults in the West, which is to me very stupid & naive. Traditionally, the father had a say in his daughter's choice of marriage, which served as a barrier against those who're looking to exploit her. Now that this is not applicable, the age of consent is increasingly getting higher & higher. Maybe in another hundred years it'll become 25 or something!

Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

- I don't think there is an objective argument that could be made against Pedophilia. In the Islamic worldview, actions like Sexuality in a society are essentially tolerated as long as they are supported by the beliefs of said society (or community), or sometimes by the norms of said society (or community). So, we regard these things to be arbitrary & culturally related (Balyyah & Milkyyah), thus have no objective reason to ban them, expect in the Muslim Ummah of course, for it is supposed to be balanced & in harmony. Some native tribes in American considered Homosexuality for instance some sort of holy act. In that case, Muslims would have no problem allowing such practices. In a Hadith, the Prophet (pbuh) mentions that nearing the end of time, men would marry men, & women would marry women. & in another, he mentions that eventually the dominant sexuality on earth would be homosexuality.
...etc.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:43:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:57:14 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Do you think that beauty standards are moving in this direction? I mean, ephebophilia is pretty much the norm at this point, and the standard of what is 'desirable' seems to be trending younger and younger as time goes one. 'Youth-worship' is an undercurrent that I find particularly disturbing in modern American culture.

We are an adolescent culture; it's the theme of everything that we do. Ours is a young, vibrant culture; not a mature one like could be found in Western Europe, for example.

I think of the Brooke Shields Calvin Klein ads, and other ads (see generally http://www.complex.com...) from that brand, or any number of others from Abercrombie and Fitch, etc. which basically illustrate the point that -especially for girls- the models fit into that category, like you were suggesting.

That said, advertisements don't really bother me all that much... they just are what they are. I don't like them, but I don't really think much about them.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:03:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will say, in a related note, that I think that the idea that "children" (people under the age of 18) must necessarily be "protected" from things that happen in this world (sex, drugs, violence, etc.) is absurd. That is not to say that I favor exposing them carte blanche to all the filth that human society has to offer, but by "protecting" I think most parents (including, to some extent, my own) what parent's do is either (a) pretend like these things don't exist, or (b) insufficiently explain what is going on so that kids don't understand what's at stake. My parents did both of these things, although to a lesser extent than, I think, many other parents do.

I also think that it's very strange how Western society (and specifically the United States) manufactured the idea of "adolescence." That is unique to America, or, at least it was when the concept came around. From that idea came certain notions of things like "the age at which one may give consent." As if, for example, one's having acquired a certain period of life prepared them for engaging in sexual activity. It's absurd. There were times when 12 year old girls were married off to 30 year old men, in England. That still happens in many Middle Eastern Countries.

To be very clear, I don't think that 12 year olds should be able to marry at all. But, I do think that situations where we're on the fringes of these artificial benchmarks (like the Owen LaBrie trial) where you've got a 19 year old and a 15 year old are incredibly stupid. It's kids being dumb. I've listened to the girl's story, and I've listened to the boy's story, and the boy could face 11 years in prison for that because he did something that all teenagers do with a girl that was a few years his junior.

It's my view that you've got a situation where a girl who was a freshman was highly flattered to have the affection of an old boy, and she wanted to enjoy his "company." This made her feel special. She later found out that there was a tradition whereby older students tried to have sex with younger students, and then felt not only less special but used. Then she invented a fantasy of rape, because she learned after the fact of that said tradition.

Now, because we live in a stupid culture where even questioning a rape victim is regarded as taboo, and because she (the girl) felt humiliated, she convinced herself that she was raped, and now you've got a young man's life which is going to be changed forever because her feelings got hurt when she -literally- was a willing participant in all of this. She is too young to have a clue of the damage to this boy that she's done, and he will now, for the rest of his life, be the guy who was accused of raping the freshman girl. It's asinine.

And the only reason we even have this discussion to begin with is because we live in a culture with an equally stupid attitude that girls who have had sex are less valuable than girls who have not had sex, which is disgusting. Losing one's virginity is not bad, and you're not "used" if you've had sex. You've just had sex. That's it. There is no difference before or after. All the stupid ideas that society imputes on people, which people internalize, and then feel horrible about... those are seriously dangerous.

But, the fact that those norms also apply are the reason why we have advertisements like the Brooke Shields ad, and why those advertisements are at once so controversial and so effective at selling jeans.
Tsar of DDO
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:52:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I challenge the idea that harbouring paedophilic, hebephilic (new word I just learnt, BTW), paederastic or, for that matter, homocidal thoughts is morally neutral because there is no action involved.

We should judge morality based on what's going on inside people's heads, and not what they do. In Chomskyan terms, we should be judging by 'competence' and not 'performance'. Someone who attempts murder but fails is morally worse than someone who commits manslaughter.

Harbouring bad thoughts, even if they aren't realised in one's actions, are, I'd argue, signs of a deficient 'moral competence'.

I'll use second-language acquisition as an analogy. In the beginning stages of learning a new grammatical item, we haven't really 'internalised' their rules, i.e. it's not part of their competence yet. For example, let's say I've just recited the list of unaccusative verbs in French (which take etre instead of avoir as the auxiliary in the passe compose). I'll have to make a conscious effort to switch to 'etre' whenever I use 'venu', 'alle', etc. Although I know the rule, I haven't internalised it.

Similarly, if someone has to actively suppress paedophilic thoughts to prevent acting on them, I'd argue that his 'moral competence' is still yet to adapt to the moral rule that bans paedophilia. It is only when he has internalised this and no longer has to suppress those urges that he has succeeded in self-cultivation.

'In the Book of Poetry are three hundred pieces, but the design of them all may be embraced in one sentence - "Having no depraved thoughts."' (Analects 2.2) The Book of Poetry (Songs) was the epitome of perfect morality from a bygone era, the Grand Union, and they taught us to have no depraved thoughts.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 2:11:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:03:36 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say, in a related note, that I think that the idea that "children" (people under the age of 18) must necessarily be "protected" from things that happen in this world (sex, drugs, violence, etc.) is absurd. That is not to say that I favor exposing them carte blanche to all the filth that human society has to offer, but by "protecting" I think most parents (including, to some extent, my own) what parent's do is either (a) pretend like these things don't exist, or (b) insufficiently explain what is going on so that kids don't understand what's at stake. My parents did both of these things, although to a lesser extent than, I think, many other parents do.

I also think that it's very strange how Western society (and specifically the United States) manufactured the idea of "adolescence." That is unique to America, or, at least it was when the concept came around. From that idea came certain notions of things like "the age at which one may give consent." As if, for example, one's having acquired a certain period of life prepared them for engaging in sexual activity. It's absurd. There were times when 12 year old girls were married off to 30 year old men, in England. That still happens in many Middle Eastern Countries.

To be very clear, I don't think that 12 year olds should be able to marry at all. But, I do think that situations where we're on the fringes of these artificial benchmarks (like the Owen LaBrie trial) where you've got a 19 year old and a 15 year old are incredibly stupid. It's kids being dumb. I've listened to the girl's story, and I've listened to the boy's story, and the boy could face 11 years in prison for that because he did something that all teenagers do with a girl that was a few years his junior.

It's my view that you've got a situation where a girl who was a freshman was highly flattered to have the affection of an old boy, and she wanted to enjoy his "company." This made her feel special. She later found out that there was a tradition whereby older students tried to have sex with younger students, and then felt not only less special but used. Then she invented a fantasy of rape, because she learned after the fact of that said tradition.

Now, because we live in a stupid culture where even questioning a rape victim is regarded as taboo, and because she (the girl) felt humiliated, she convinced herself that she was raped, and now you've got a young man's life which is going to be changed forever because her feelings got hurt when she -literally- was a willing participant in all of this. She is too young to have a clue of the damage to this boy that she's done, and he will now, for the rest of his life, be the guy who was accused of raping the freshman girl. It's asinine.
While you may consider the penalty rather on the harsh side, I don't think I disagree with the spirit of the laws in the first place. They are a good way to keep teenagers from doing dumb things before they're old enough to be responsible for their dumb actions. Without the laws, I don't doubt premature sex would be much more prevalent among teenagers here.

Another purpose of the law is to protect girls from harm. It's necessary to realise that girls face a lot of social stigma for losing their virginity, not to mention that they risk pregnancy. They already have a huge price to pay for their stupidity (unlike the boys, who walk away virtually without consequences outside legal ones). Thus laws are usually set up in a way that gives greater protection to girls. For example, here are the laws in my area (I know it's different from most places in the US):
Underage boy + underage girl -> Statutory rape for boy
Underage boy + adult girl -> Sexual assault for girl
Adult boy + underage girl -> Statutory rape for boy

Of course, there is a rather sad side effect to these laws - once kids go to college and no longer have their every step scrutinised by their parents and teachers, a lot of them try the forbidden fruit almost immediately. Schools, on their part, certainly need to spend more effort promoting abstinence. (I've joked about this in the past and you might be tired of hearing this joke, but teachers here prefer abstinence... from talking about the issue, lol.)

And the only reason we even have this discussion to begin with is because we live in a culture with an equally stupid attitude that girls who have had sex are less valuable than girls who have not had sex, which is disgusting. Losing one's virginity is not bad, and you're not "used" if you've had sex. You've just had sex. That's it. There is no difference before or after. All the stupid ideas that society imputes on people, which people internalize, and then feel horrible about... those are seriously dangerous.
I agree with the first half of the paragraph, that the said idea ('that girls who have had sex are less valuable than girls who have not had sex') is preposterous and sexist, if it is applied only to girls. This is a stupid double standard.

However, regardless of gender, I'd certainly think less of someone who decides to keep his/her virginity until marriage, compared to someone who does not. Abstinence is a mark of virtue, since it is restraining the self to return to propriety.
But, the fact that those norms also apply are the reason why we have advertisements like the Brooke Shields ad, and why those advertisements are at once so controversial and so effective at selling jeans.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 2:14:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

What is hebephilia? Im not sure I ever heard of that one.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 7:28:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 2:14:47 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

What is hebephilia? Im not sure I ever heard of that one.

That's whenever you like 11 and 12 year olds.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 1:55:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 7:28:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:14:47 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

What is hebephilia? Im not sure I ever heard of that one.

That's whenever you like 11 and 12 year olds.

Hmm...OK. I always thought that would be pedophilia too. But I guess pedo is "under 12" then? But in the eyes of the law, I think it wold be the same, right? I don't think they differate between pedophilia and hebephilia, so this is maybe a psychological term? Anyway thanks for the answer.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 11:11:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 1:55:57 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/30/2015 7:28:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:14:47 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

What is hebephilia? Im not sure I ever heard of that one.

That's whenever you like 11 and 12 year olds.

Hmm...OK. I always thought that would be pedophilia too. But I guess pedo is "under 12" then? But in the eyes of the law, I think it wold be the same, right? I don't think they differate between pedophilia and hebephilia, so this is maybe a psychological term? Anyway thanks for the answer.

Pedophilia isn't a legal term so much as it is it's a psychological one.

Pedophile = attracted to prepubescent children
Hebephile = attracted to early adolescents
Ephebophile = attracted to late adolescents
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 11:16:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 2:11:30 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:03:36 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say, in a related note, that I think that the idea that "children" (people under the age of 18) must necessarily be "protected" from things that happen in this world (sex, drugs, violence, etc.) is absurd. That is not to say that I favor exposing them carte blanche to all the filth that human society has to offer, but by "protecting" I think most parents (including, to some extent, my own) what parent's do is either (a) pretend like these things don't exist, or (b) insufficiently explain what is going on so that kids don't understand what's at stake. My parents did both of these things, although to a lesser extent than, I think, many other parents do.

I also think that it's very strange how Western society (and specifically the United States) manufactured the idea of "adolescence." That is unique to America, or, at least it was when the concept came around. From that idea came certain notions of things like "the age at which one may give consent." As if, for example, one's having acquired a certain period of life prepared them for engaging in sexual activity. It's absurd. There were times when 12 year old girls were married off to 30 year old men, in England. That still happens in many Middle Eastern Countries.

To be very clear, I don't think that 12 year olds should be able to marry at all. But, I do think that situations where we're on the fringes of these artificial benchmarks (like the Owen LaBrie trial) where you've got a 19 year old and a 15 year old are incredibly stupid. It's kids being dumb. I've listened to the girl's story, and I've listened to the boy's story, and the boy could face 11 years in prison for that because he did something that all teenagers do with a girl that was a few years his junior.

It's my view that you've got a situation where a girl who was a freshman was highly flattered to have the affection of an old boy, and she wanted to enjoy his "company." This made her feel special. She later found out that there was a tradition whereby older students tried to have sex with younger students, and then felt not only less special but used. Then she invented a fantasy of rape, because she learned after the fact of that said tradition.

Now, because we live in a stupid culture where even questioning a rape victim is regarded as taboo, and because she (the girl) felt humiliated, she convinced herself that she was raped, and now you've got a young man's life which is going to be changed forever because her feelings got hurt when she -literally- was a willing participant in all of this. She is too young to have a clue of the damage to this boy that she's done, and he will now, for the rest of his life, be the guy who was accused of raping the freshman girl. It's asinine.
While you may consider the penalty rather on the harsh side, I don't think I disagree with the spirit of the laws in the first place. They are a good way to keep teenagers from doing dumb things before they're old enough to be responsible for their dumb actions. Without the laws, I don't doubt premature sex would be much more prevalent among teenagers here.

Honestly, I don't really have a problem with it, as long as the participants are educated enough to avoid pregnancy/STDs.

Another purpose of the law is to protect girls from harm. It's necessary to realise that girls face a lot of social stigma for losing their virginity, not to mention that they risk pregnancy. They already have a huge price to pay for their stupidity (unlike the boys, who walk away virtually without consequences outside legal ones). Thus laws are usually set up in a way that gives greater protection to girls. For example, here are the laws in my area (I know it's different from most places in the US):
Underage boy + underage girl -> Statutory rape for boy
Underage boy + adult girl -> Sexual assault for girl
Adult boy + underage girl -> Statutory rape for boy

So a young person's life is ruined for fooling around with someone their own age? I see absolutely zero justification for that, especially here, where a lot of the stigma surrounding sex has been eroded already.

Of course, there is a rather sad side effect to these laws - once kids go to college and no longer have their every step scrutinised by their parents and teachers, a lot of them try the forbidden fruit almost immediately. Schools, on their part, certainly need to spend more effort promoting abstinence. (I've joked about this in the past and you might be tired of hearing this joke, but teachers here prefer abstinence... from talking about the issue, lol.)

Are you being serious about teaching abstinence?

However, regardless of gender, I'd certainly think less of someone who decides to keep his/her virginity until marriage, compared to someone who does not. Abstinence is a mark of virtue, since it is restraining the self to return to propriety.

I think that the capacity for self-restraint is a good quality to have, but I'm pretty null about applying it across the board when it comes to sex. I don't see how that's particularly virtuous.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 11:23:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:52:58 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I challenge the idea that harbouring paedophilic, hebephilic (new word I just learnt, BTW), paederastic or, for that matter, homocidal thoughts is morally neutral because there is no action involved.

We should judge morality based on what's going on inside people's heads, and not what they do. In Chomskyan terms, we should be judging by 'competence' and not 'performance'. Someone who attempts murder but fails is morally worse than someone who commits manslaughter.

Harbouring bad thoughts, even if they aren't realised in one's actions, are, I'd argue, signs of a deficient 'moral competence'.

I'll use second-language acquisition as an analogy. In the beginning stages of learning a new grammatical item, we haven't really 'internalised' their rules, i.e. it's not part of their competence yet. For example, let's say I've just recited the list of unaccusative verbs in French (which take etre instead of avoir as the auxiliary in the passe compose). I'll have to make a conscious effort to switch to 'etre' whenever I use 'venu', 'alle', etc. Although I know the rule, I haven't internalised it.

Similarly, if someone has to actively suppress paedophilic thoughts to prevent acting on them, I'd argue that his 'moral competence' is still yet to adapt to the moral rule that bans paedophilia. It is only when he has internalised this and no longer has to suppress those urges that he has succeeded in self-cultivation.

'In the Book of Poetry are three hundred pieces, but the design of them all may be embraced in one sentence - "Having no depraved thoughts."' (Analects 2.2) The Book of Poetry (Songs) was the epitome of perfect morality from a bygone era, the Grand Union, and they taught us to have no depraved thoughts.

I disagree with this view pretty heavily, for reasons of moral nihilism (the only 'morality' are the rules which govern society, which are only really concerned with actions and their affects.)

I take it that you think that, for example, pederasty is inherently and objectively immoral, then? Why?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:04:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:40:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:22:48 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:15:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:14:04 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I have a question first...
Is having homicidal thoughts immoral, or just acting on them?

Just acting on them, and even that has blurry lines. If I kill someone out of revenge in a political vacuum, is that immoral? I don't think so...

*In my opinion,* having thoughts of it, could be as a result of maybe something mental, or maybe because it was once conventional in some cultures. But the actual act would be ... immoral because some "victims" of pedophilia may not be old enough to consent... So having thoughts is fine, but acting on it is not... But that's just my opinion...

Consent is just a legal construct, a line in the sand. While the line needs to be draws, the actual capacity for consent is based on mental maturity, not age.

This is not entirely true, though. The mental maturity of some one might not matter if they are groomed into such a position of a victim or abuse of authority puts them in a position to be preyed on. The vital information that would be given to any other "garden variety" victim isn't present that would be able to give them informed consent.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:52:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 3:04:46 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:40:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:22:48 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:15:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:14:04 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a thread for discussing the moral implications of the titular topics. Are pedophilic thoughts immoral, or just acting on them? What hard line distinguishes pedophilia from the hebephilic bents of many cultures, past and present? Are these rules subjected to culturally relative standards? Is pedophilia objectively and universally harmful, or do now-defunct historical examples of functioning pederastic social institutions undermine that stance?

I have a question first...
Is having homicidal thoughts immoral, or just acting on them?

Just acting on them, and even that has blurry lines. If I kill someone out of revenge in a political vacuum, is that immoral? I don't think so...

*In my opinion,* having thoughts of it, could be as a result of maybe something mental, or maybe because it was once conventional in some cultures. But the actual act would be ... immoral because some "victims" of pedophilia may not be old enough to consent... So having thoughts is fine, but acting on it is not... But that's just my opinion...

Consent is just a legal construct, a line in the sand. While the line needs to be draws, the actual capacity for consent is based on mental maturity, not age.

This is not entirely true, though. The mental maturity of some one might not matter if they are groomed into such a position of a victim or abuse of authority puts them in a position to be preyed on. The vital information that would be given to any other "garden variety" victim isn't present that would be able to give them informed consent.

How is this constricted to age though? Those factors could just as easily apply to an adults. The relevant quality is still mental maturity + information, which is not, objectively, restricted by age.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -