Is It Ok To Have Sex With Kids?

[Banjofrog]

And if not why not?

 

Most people agree that actions which harm others are wrong, but many actions are illegal which do not harm anyone and are known as victimless crimes. How can society justify criminalizing having sex with kids if it doesn't hurt anyone?

 

Many assume that a child will be 'traumatized' by having sex with an adult, however this is not true. Firstly ages of consent vary across the world (from 13 in Spain to 18 in California) - proof that there is no consensus on what the minimally acceptable age at which a person can engage in sex is. Secondly much of the 'trauma' (guilt, shame, victimization) felt by 'victims' is in fact caused by society, such as in the case of Africa's 'Witch Children', many of whom genuinely believe they are 'witches' - not because they are but because they have been told they are.

 

Suppose a child has consensual safe-sex with an adult in a society where this is permitted (and therefore not immoral/taboo etc). In what way would the child be harmed?

[belovelife]

i didn't want to reply to this because the question, to me, is just so wrong

 

i think that adults should NOT do these things

 

it is an upsetting topic, since i see old men dating 18 year olds as creepy

then bringing that to 13 yo, this topic is just messed up, mabe my upbringing molds me to this

 

but what about a developing girl, where a man is too big and strtches her, then besides the emotional issues

 

she is then "jello" as an adult

 

 

 

basically, this topic sucks IMHO

[lawcat]

The right question is, how young is too young?

[Deepwater6]

For every age that is set by a country for legal sex with a minor, there will always be some horn-dog who gets his/her rocks off doing something to a person that society deems immoral. All the lonely adults out there in the world and these creeps need to have a child???

 

Since every child developes at different ages it's impossible to stamp a certian age as the ethical one, either mental or physical. I'll give some people the benefit of the doubt with teenagers, but those freaks out there obsessed with 5,6,7 yr olds OR YOUNGER deserve some punishment either through the courts or the prison systems version like this story below.

 

 

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=8390112

[Banjofrog]

i didn't want to reply to this because the question, to me, is just so wrong

 

Can you explain why it's wrong? Is being homosexual wrong? Is having brown eyes wrong?

 

mabe my upbringing molds me to this

 

I believe it does. If your upbringing were that of a Muslim you would consider it appropriate to stone adulterous women to death.

 

The right question is, how young is too young?

 

We are all individuals, there will never be a universal answer to that question. The best rules are usually the most simplistic i.e. if sex is harmful it is illegal.

[Qfwfq]

Many assume that a child will be 'traumatized' by having sex with an adult, however this is not true.

They assume it because it is true.

 

Firstly ages of consent vary across the world (from 13 in Spain to 18 in California) - proof that there is no consensus on what the minimally acceptable age at which a person can engage in sex is.

How many countries set an age of consent at which the person is no doubt pre-adolescent?

 

Secondly much of the 'trauma' (guilt, shame, victimization) felt by 'victims' is in fact caused by society

How many victims of pedophiles are covered in shame and made to feel guilty because of it? Plenty of them are not, it is a thing of the past fortunately, they are given therapy to minimize the damage but even so they face difficulty as they become adults.

[jab2]

They assume it because it is true.

According to what data?

 

Here in SA it is not uncommon for girls in the poorer communities to be sexually active at 12 years of age. Would it scar such girls emotionally considering they enter into sexual relations by free will with their peers? If your life is a hell because of poverty, the high of sex is just about the only high you know, and it is free. So can feeling good be harmful?

 

Now if this 12 year old move to a sexual relation with a 20 year old, what would be different to the relation to scar her emotionally? And if she turns 30 and have a relationship with a 38 year old, still the same age difference, would it still be harmful?

 

Make no mistake, I do not condone it when youngsters are sexually active, but the issue is not so clear cut as society wants to make it. During the Middle Ages the age of girls on marriage, and therefore their sexually active age, was way lower than what society deems acceptable today. Was the average Middle Ages women more traumatized than today's woman fighting for a place in the corporate world?

 

Nature is not perfect, but it is sometimes worrying that we try to out think nature and want to prescribe to it. Eg our diet today is totally off from our digestive system design, with very visible results. But back to the subject. Would nature be so far off the mark that it enters a girl into her reproductive cycle, yet her brain is still not ready for 7-9 years to deal with the issues of reproduction, thus somehow have to juggle hormonal needs with abstinence for 8 years?

[Qfwfq]

Jab, you seem to have missed my point. Did you not notice that I talked about pre-adolescent ages?

 

We could discuss a lot about adolescent sex and you and I would be much less in disagreement. What's the legal age of consent in SA? Guess how it is here in Italy. Not 18 but 14, and sex with a 13 year old isn't punishable if the age difference is no more than 4 years. As far as I go it should be mainly a matter of sexual maturity, but age difference can be relevant as well. In my experience, girls who had been steady with an older guy since their early teens weren't coming out of it very well because they hadn't been maturing normally; having a boyfriend that's also a father isn't healthy. Oh, once both are adults the same age difference isn't nearly as bad, I'm talking about cases where the pair when she was around, say, 14 or 15.

 

According to what data?

Are you asking about 12 year olds or about less than 10 year olds? Around 12 it is a very individual matter. If a girl of 12 has the high of sex then at least she is adolescent, the trouble is if she's not yet "functioning" and this goes for any molested child.

 

I do not condone it when youngsters are sexually active,

Why the hell not? As long as it is healthy for them, I mean.

 

During the Middle Ages the age of girls on marriage, and therefore their sexually active age, was way lower than what society deems acceptable today. Was the average Middle Ages women more traumatized than today's woman fighting for a place in the corporate world?

Many things were socially acceptable and common in ancient times, does that mean they were great? I don't think marriages with unreproductive girls were often being actually consumed but, sure, there likely were pedophiles in those days too and it wasn't less harmful to the child than today. People have always been screwing each other's lives up and it happens today too; there are so many ways of doing it and, yes, I agree the corporate world does it and I've had my own taste of it.

 

Would nature be so far off the mark that it enters a girl into her reproductive cycle, yet her brain is still not ready for 7-9 years to deal with the issues of reproduction, thus somehow have to juggle hormonal needs with abstinence for 8 years?

Of course nature would be, but it isn't so troublesome outside of our species. The economy of our "modern Western world" is no longer designed for marriage in early adolescence, but what's this got to do with screwing children?

[jab2]

Jab, you seem to have missed my point. Did you not notice that I talked about pre-adolescent ages?

I guess I did, since you only mentioned it AFTER your "They assume it because it is true." statement to Banjofrog which was the trigger of my initial response.

 

We could discuss a lot about adolescent sex and you and I would be much less in disagreement. What's the legal age of consent in SA? Guess how it is here in Italy. Not 18 but 14, and sex with a 13 year old isn't punishable if the age difference is no more than 4 years. As far as I go it should be mainly a matter of sexual maturity, but age difference can be relevant as well. In my experience, girls who had been steady with an older guy since their early teens weren't coming out of it very well because they hadn't been maturing normally; having a boyfriend that's also a father isn't healthy. Oh, once both are adults the same age difference isn't nearly as bad, I'm talking about cases where the pair when she was around, say, 14 or 15.

In SA the age of consent is16 years. I'd say we are on the same wavelength here.

 

Are you asking about 12 year olds or about less than 10 year olds? Around 12 it is a very individual matter. If a girl of 12 has the high of sex then at least she is adolescent, the trouble is if she's not yet "functioning" and this goes for any molested child.

Maybe my use of the word sex is not strictly correct since English is not my mother tongue, but I see sex as copulation between consenting people who both get a stimulation benefit. If one partner is under duress in my book I would describe it as rape, not sex.

 

Why the hell not? As long as it is healthy for them, I mean.

Yes, but measured by the norms of current western societies, it would be disruptive to the benefits that a tight, caring family are suppose to give.

[Qfwfq]

Well, it seems we tripped on language issues. Many English speakers say child when they mean someone not yet adolescent, and not all of them restrict the word sex to cases that are OK (which would make the title a moot point anyway).

 

In any case, it is not a simple matter and people in doubt should consult competent professionals.

[Kriminal99]

Give it up. There is no purpose of life that can be divined from intelligence, which means that the only purpose of life is live itself. The immense revulsion that people feel for the idea that you are speaking about is inseparable from those feelings and emotions that give life meaning and will never go away.

 

And consent is meaningless for a kid.

[Banjofrog]

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

[CraigD]

A belated welcome to hypography, Banjofrog – though as a single topic poster on a distasteful subject, my welcome must be a cold one.

 

I think your original claim – that sexual interaction between adults and children is not innately psychologically injurious, but that such injury is due to reaction to such interaction determined by social norms – is scientifically well supported. I believe it’s true.

 

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

Though I’ve not read, and likely won’t read, Clancy’s 2010 book The Trauma Myth, I expect, a good collection of scientific support for your claim. I’ve read many papers, and spoken with clinicians who have read and written, that reach the same conclusion, and applaud Suzan Clancy for her effort to reach a wider audience.

 

Your post would be more effective, I think, with a link more material, such as this Jan 2010 Salon interview article – the key to of the World Wide Web is, and the “hypo” in hypography stands for, after all, “hyperlink”.

 

However, as evidenced by the “it’s just so wrong” reactions you got last year, this is such an emotionally loaded subject, I think it’s practically impossible for a general audience, even IMHO the unusually good and open-minded one here at hypography, to discuss it rationally and scientifically.

 

If we accept that the general public will not any time soon be able to set aside a reason-overriding emotional reaction to the subject of child sex, we’re directed, I think, to conclude that Clancy and our position is best argued to a narrowly target audience consisting of people who are, via their professions, in a position to prevent physical and psychological harm to people due to our society’s poorly reasoned, emotionally violent views of the subject. Though many psychotherapists and related professionals share our views, from personal experience, I know that many are unable to overcome their socialized biases, and thus cause unnecessary injury. Even more than in the mental health care community, I believe this ignorance is widespread in among teacher, social workers, police, lawyers, and law makers, a situation complicated by the requirement in many professions that knowledge of child sexual conduct be reported to social workers or police, and that these people must attempt to initiate criminal prosecutions. In many regards, I believe that people in these professions are more likely to cause unnecessary injury than they were 50+ years ago, when sexual indiscretions were more often “swept under the rug”, or “left to the families”.

 

For non-professionals, such as me, the best I can do is counsel parents and children who believe that child sex has “traumatized” or “ruined” them, to avail themselves of internet resources and books like Clancy’s, in the hope that they can avoid hurting themselves and others.

 

Note, however, that my belief that child sex is not innately wrong in harmful does not lead me to the conclusion that adjust should have sex with children, or children with each other. I’ve seen no scientific or anecdotal evidence that people not having sex with other before their age of legal consent (from 12 to 20, average 16, depending on jurisdiction) is harmful, so believe there is no compelling need to violate any laws regarding child sex. Like it or not, we live in a society where actions motivated by social norms are as tangible as those due to laws of nature, so need to be mindful of them.

 

Having strongly taboo or illegal sex can harm others, so should simply, IMO, be refrained from. I would no more subject myself or others to possible harm by having sex with someone under the legal age of consent than I would expose someone of witchcraft in a community where such an accusation could cause harm.

 

So, in short and to this thread’s title question, where I live, I believe it’s not OK to have sex with kids. People who do, I believe, are risking harm to themselves and others to satisfy selfish sexual desires. They should not.

[Lancewen]

I find this topic interesting in that someone actually had the guts to start it. I personally don't approve of adults having sex with children whether it's harmful or not. Consider how you would feel if you had a family with at least one daughter and lets suppose at age 10 she had sex with a favorite uncle and enjoyed it. On the surface you might think no harm was done. But somehow the rest of the family finds out about it. Can you think of anyway that family won't be damaged by what happened? If you were the girls father, what are the odds you won't commit some act of violence against the girls uncle? If you do or don't a major disruption in the family can't be good for all concerned.

 

Now lets examine what happens if the family doesn't find out at least for awhile. The 10 year old girl is now sexually active and hiding that fact from her family. I just can't see anything good happening for that little girls life, no matter how much she might be enjoying sex now.

 

I think we have the laws we do for a good reason. However that doesn't mean we should ruin a persons life because another has made an accusation.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Until a person is old enough to understand that dead is dead, diseases can kill, just because you don't want to get pregnant doesn't mean you won't, that having a child means having to work to support it, having a child means sacrifices, that just the act of having a child can kill or permanently disfigure them, That they will be responsible for every act committed by their child until it is at least 18 (if they keep it), that they have the right to tell an adult (or anyone else) no, and are old enough not to be manipulated into consenting they should not be having sex with anyone.

 

In short most people shouldn't even think of sex until they are at LEAST in their mid twenties (IMHO). ) ...old enough to have gotten a good understanding of just what it takes just to take care of and provide for themselves, old/young enough to have the least risk of death and injury from pregnancy, and hopefully old enough to know just what exactly they want out of life and can realistically achieve.

 

No birth control is 100% effective with the exceptions of hysterectomy and abstinence. With the former being irreversible and highly recommended not to be performed in women under the age of 35 due to health risks...increasingly it is being recommended against with the exceptions of health issues which can only be resolved by removing the affected organs. Ie. cancer of the ovaries or uterus.

 

Not to mention it is a proven fact that girls that are too young are at much more significant risks of life threatening injuries and illness from sex.

 

Sorry the links aren't all that useful this is a tough one to research via google.

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/135688.php

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21315449

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I guess a better way of saying it would be:

 

Until a person is old enough to understanding the risks, and how an unexpected outcome (Ie. pregnancy, STD, et.) WILL effect their lives in the long term they should not be allowed to make such decisions, and any responsible adult would not wish risk a youth's future for something as trivial as a romp tween the sheets. Hence one reason it's offensive, it goes against the desire to see a youth achieve as much as they possibly can in life.

 

Another the deliberate unnecessary risk of harm to the youth (injury, disease, or death) goes against the desire to protect juveniles against harm (which is very likely instinct driven...some how I don't believe we have lost this in our separation from the rest of the beasts).

 

So no, on these two counts alone it is immoral. Of course morality is in the eye of the beholder (s). I'm sure there are those that could GAS less about the risks to the juvenile and therefore in their eyes see nothing wrong with endangering them for their own gratification.

Edited February 27, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD