The age of consent in some places used to be 12 or younger. Funny how things that were appropriate back then can land you into jail today. So much for universal morals.
As a moral relativist myself, ‘okayness’ in this and any other situation, exists in the minds of those who make a judgment in this matter; it’s relative and depends to the sensibilities of the persons evaluating. So, to answer your question, okayness exists, albeit only in the mind, when someone thinks that molestation is okay, and okayness does not exist when someone else thinks that molestation is not okay. My sensibilities on this matter tell me molestation is not okay…there’s no reasoning involved here. I can reason out my feelings on this matter, but this reason is post hoc. I didn’t use reason to come to my position. My position is just an expression of my sensibilities.
For example, when someone comes to my home and greets my family and they shake my younger brother’s hand before mine, or my mother’s before my father’s, then I just automatically feel something is wrong. I know it’s stupid to most, and even I think it’s stupid. Even so, I still feel that it’s not okay when it happens.
I think it’s okay if the child is dead, so long as s/he wasn’t murded by you for the sole intent of having a corpse to screw. That is to say, if you were to sneak into a morgue and get your rocks off in a six year old that died in a car wreck, you’re probably in the clear, Smears.
Ok instead of saying “molest” we might say, “forcibly have well lubricated sex”. That way it’s against the kid’s will, but it might not hurt them too bad physically.
I thought we were talking about physical acts here? non-physical acts are arbritary, and dependent on the sociotel situation of individuals…
My sister often violently-nudges me when we are talking, and that violates my persoanl space as-well-as being highly annoying - she has the cheek to complain when I tell her to stop: when she is the one doing the touching, not me!
Mutual respect is the key to a better-evolved society, but as most of humanity still act like animals: I fear this is a long way off!
A seven year old shouldn’t be alone with anyone to have time to sign any bloody consent form - it’s a parent’s job to ensure that their kids are kept away from harm/etc. until they are old enough to know any better…
Good parents know where their kids are at all times, and instill in them that age-old practice of not talking to/going off with any strange folk who are not immediate family - it kept me/my siblings free from harm.
Children are helpless. They don’t have the capacity to make a genuine act of will in this matter because they’re still in a formative stage and are pretty much at the mercy of those who care for them or try to control them or take advantage of them.
While the perp might think it’s ok, which I highly doubt that would be the true case because of the conscience, the punishment will undoubtedly come in many forms from without and within in natural due course thus demonstrating the universal immorality of it.
I personally don’t understand pedaphillia in that I see no necessity or utility in the act of it.
I mean, if you are going to rape someone atleast go after a sixteen or twenty year old.
( Those ages are better to molest anyways in my humble opinion.)
With that been said if it is legitimate to molest people in poverty under the guise of legalized poverty approved by the government in the sense of classism or class stratification through the wage I don’t see how anyone can say that they support classism but at the same time disapprove of pedaphile acts without being a total hypocrite.
So if children are helpless, and it’s the parent’s responsibility to raise them as they feel they should, then what if the parent chooses to molest the child?
The problems that I’m trying to bring out are about when one person’s rights can outweigh another’s as far as people in general feeling as though they have the rights to do what makes them happy.
It’s arguable that every act that increases the happiness of one person or group decreases that of another person or group.
It’s easy to just make judgements about what’s right and wrong instinctivley in most cases.
But I’m really bringing up this because for the most part, everyone finds this particular practice to be morally reprehensible.
But since some people choose to molest kids, and because those people make decisions, to some extent the same way that others do, I want to know what’s different about the decision making process in the eyes of those who don’t find child molesting to be something that’s so bad they wont still consider doing it.
If a molester can philosophically justify his actions on the same grounds as the person who seeks to end the holocaust, then maybe I can learn something about how the two make decisions differently based on everything from moral intuitions, to actual processes intended to increase utility or to prevent harm.
Why doesn’t someone take up the side that it’s ok to molest a kid, and provide a set of circumstances in which they think it would be most likely to be permissible, then we can compare that argument to one which is in favor of something that we all know is a good idea, (like ending the holocaust).
It might be interesting to see the things about the arguments which are the same.
Everyone is against the molestation of children and yet society as a whole supports the molestation of people in poverty for their own selfish benefit everyday.
I suppose being against the molestation of children looks better on paper versus being against the molestation of adults who work in poverty until old age.
You can reason anything really. I am told that in torturing people the executioner has a sort of reasoning he is adhering to when he inserts the knife into the flesh of another person.
