Secular arguments against pedophilia

[Ismael]

I’m in the military and some of my soldiers who are veterans say that man-boy pedophilia is accepted. Can a secular case be made against that societal practice?

1- Psychology:

Studies have shown Sex with a child is very traumatic for the child… even if there is “consent”.

I put consent between quotation marks because I think as most cases go even if a child is ‘fooled’ to willingly accept secual relationships with an adult it’s never really full consent as a child is unprepared, psychologically for the sexual experience with an adult.

This traumas lead to greate suffering and damage to the child life, even in adulthood.

(althouth the American Psychiatric Association and the American Association of Pediatrics might soon disagree with this and make up some bogus ‘studies’ that claim otherwise, as some trends suggest… but for now they are agreeing!)

–

2- Physiology

The body of pre-adolescents and even early adolescents is not ‘ready’ for sexual intercourse, since it’s still under development.

---

3- Natural Law

I would argue, also following from 1 and 2, that pedophilia goes against natural law. Even in male-female case and not only male-male or female-female case.

Nature has ordained that the body to be ready for sexual relationships after the beginning of adolescence, when the sexual organs are fully developed.

Hence pedophilia goes against Natural Law as well, I’d argue.

 

[John_Savage]

I’m going into a little diabolical advocacy here:

But, if society doesn’t think it harms children, is it still bad, from a secular perspective? For example, people used to think being raised by a single mom or two homosexual men, or divorce harmed children. Now, it’s OK.

Physiology doesn’t matter in some sexual practices. Some people say children are sexual from a young age.

Most societies, pre-Christian, used children sexually. Were they all harmed. People sometimes use suicide statistics to say that homosexuality is harmful, but what’s really harmful is society’s lack of acceptance.

Some publications have noticed a change in attitude among psychologists concerning pedophilia. They might start to think it’s OK:

guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia “is a sexual orientation” and therefore “unlikely to change”.

But not all experts are sure. A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are “nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes”.

Natural law isn’t a secular argument.

 

[markeverett49]

I’m going into a little diabolical advocacy here:

But, if society doesn’t think it harms children, is it still bad, from a secular perspective?.

You act as if there is only one secular perspective. There are many. Take pornography: some secularists think of it as harmful, others think of it as a good, and still others as something neutral (such as liking sports or movies). Still others think it is not bad in and of itself but can be over-relied upon by the emotionally immature and in those cases might be a good thing to take up with one’s therapist… There is no magisterium of secular thought.

As for society, it’s worth pondering Margaret Thatcher’s bold claim that there is no such thing as society but only individual men and women, and families. It’s remarkable how many people who deny that human beings have a nature insist that societies do…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I sometimes wonder why we need a secular argument against pedophilia. At some point doesn’t common sense kick in for most people?

 

[John_Savage]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t pederasty pretty common around the world, pre-Christian? Maybe this is the last Christian sexual more that most secularists and Christians agree upon.

I know why Christians think it’s wrong, but I’d like to know why a secularist might think it’s intrinsically wrong. I guess because they think it causes harm. But, what if people decide it doesn’t cause harm? Would most secularists still think it’s wrong? Again, I thought of this because some soldiers were saying what an accepted practice it is in some parts of the world. I’m sure people there wouldn’t consider it too harmful.

 

[inocente]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t pederasty pretty common around the world, pre-Christian? Maybe this is the last Christian sexual more that most secularists and Christians agree upon.

I know why Christians think it’s wrong, but I’d like to know why a secularist might think it’s intrinsically wrong. I guess because they think it causes harm. But, what if people decide it doesn’t cause harm? Would most secularists still think it’s wrong? Again, I thought of this because some soldiers were saying what an accepted practice it is in some parts of the world. I’m sure people there wouldn’t consider it too harmful.

As replies on this thread indicate, child abuse and rape are very wrong from both reasoning and evidence, without any threat of hell. If you’re really having so much difficulty understanding that, please consider seeking counseling.

And how could you think Christians know better than Muslims or anyone else after all the Catholic scandals?

 

[Auntie_A]

I agree with previous posts: WHY would you even question this is wrong? But I get it that sometimes we are so pressured by groupthink or by some guy who looks or acts logical and scientific stating that wrong is right because “it happens in nature” or “amongst the Trobrianders”, that we become mute and begin to question our own existence!

SO, WAKE UP!

Every person who has ever been molested, incested, raped, abused, harmed as a child has difficulties, most of them very serious, especially if the harm is not stopped and not treated by a good therapist. These difficulties will affect the person’s ability to trust, to connect, to marry, to become a strong and trustworthy parent and to be whole.

Conversely, people who have been allowed to grow up without being sexually abused or abused in any way, usually have a better, freer, easier time growing to maturity, finding a good spouse and raising a family with good boundaries.

If child abuse is a practice in Spokane, New Guinea, or Afghanistan, it is still abuse, whether the culture “embraces” it or not.

 

[John_Savage]

I think it’s wrong. But whole societies, past and present, have not thought it wrong. Some Westerners are starting to question the harms.

Anyways, the secular argument is that it causes harm, right? OK.

 

[markeverett49]

Anyways, the secular argument is that it causes harm, right? OK.

The harm here is two-fold. It is treating a child like an object, a sex toy. That’s wrong. But it is also wrong in itself; that is, the person doing this thereby harms himself. It’s debasing.

 

[Auntie_A]

I’m in the military and some of my soldiers who are veterans say that man-boy pedophilia is accepted. Can a secular case be made against that societal practice?

I will not make any case for morality and ethics, secular or religious, based on what some of your veteran soldiers say. Because frankly, not one of those men would or can speak out against male (or female) child abuse: They are either too close to see it because their childhood and teen years were mauled by idiotic abusers, or else they have become hypnotized into aberrent psychology and sexuality by the media.

Most men don’t even realize they were sexually abused when young…but this is how the abuse continues.

Ancient Glockenspielers used to wear pine cones on their eyelids…
Ancient Krackencorkers used to smear red ants on their babies when they had fevers…
Ancient Zurblestutens used to hang giant boulders from each pierced ear…

Because it is ancient, it MUST be OK, right?

Absurd argument for absurd approach to this thread.

 

[Auntie_A]

Some Westerners are starting to question the harms.

Anyways, the secular argument is that it causes harm, right? OK.

Some Westerners are starting to question the harm of almost anything that other “Westerners” have been trying to wipe out. Let’s also get rid of the child labor laws and truancy laws while we’re at it. Kids don’t need education; just keep them in a factory working all day. China gets the idea and WE, the “Westerners” buy those factory-made products. So it probably does no harm, right?

Do you get it yet, John Savage? You are questioning right and wrong through the lens of people’s opinions, not the overlying principle. Your “secular argument” concerns are sounding like high school peer pressure. You have to take your cues from something more secure and lasting than “the guys”.

 

[billcu1]

The harm here is two-fold. It is treating a child like an object, a sex toy. That’s wrong. But it is also wrong in itself; that is, the person doing this thereby harms himself. It’s debasing.

Treating anyone as a sex toy or object is wrong to me. I know a 16 yo girl who said an old man I know touched her buttocks. She seems to be functioning fine and getting along. IMO touching anyone in an inappropriate area is wrong. I can understand children but 16 yo in some places are considered children when they’re just legally underage. There’s a difference in 6 and 16. But some say no. Calling a teen-ager a child is to me an insult to teens.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Calling a teen-ager a child is to me an insult to teens.

Hi billcu I’d like you to review what I wrote on the previous page and consider that the FBI calls them “children” or “kids” (infant, toddler, or teenager). I think the reason is a child/kid has a parent(s). The FBI has a section on CHILD PREDATORS. I hope that helps you better understand so as to avoid confusion. Thank you for your patience.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I’m going into a little diabolical advocacy here:

But, if society doesn’t think it harms children, is it still bad, from a secular perspective? For example, people used to think being raised by a single mom or two homosexual men, or divorce harmed children. Now, it’s OK.

Physiology doesn’t matter in some sexual practices. Some people say children are sexual from a young age.

Most societies, pre-Christian, used children sexually. Were they all harmed. People sometimes use suicide statistics to say that homosexuality is harmful, but what’s really harmful is society’s lack of acceptance.

Some publications have noticed a change in attitude among psychologists concerning pedophilia. They might start to think it’s OK:

guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

Natural law isn’t a secular argument.

On a philosophy forum I was in a debate with an agnostic over something related to this–although he seems more like an atheist.

Most people prefer political rhetoric and cultural norms but I prefer to go to the roots and reality of thing. Best I can at least.

The agnostic I debated was correct that homosexuality does not cause harm in the sense of PTSD when carried out consensually between two adults or two fourteen year old kids.

We disagreed about the harm done to a fourteen year old having sex with an adult be it a heterosexual or homosexual encounter.

He argued it causes harm. I argued it does not. Speaking of two people attracted to each other that want to have sex with one another that is.

I’m even open to the possibility it does not cause “harm” to children eight or ten years old–depending on the context.

And by harm what I’m referring to is PTSD.

But whether or not something causes “harm” is only a principle for agnostics and atheists as to whether something should be regard as moral (or amoral) or immoral.

(I would argue that atheist can logically only subscribe to ethics and not any objective morality but that is a different issue or topic)

My feeling is that pedophilia is immoral (even if thought about) but attraction to young teens that have entered puberty and developed the characteristic in their physiques most adults find sexually attractive, is neither abnormal or immoral. That it’s criminalized points to a schizophrenia that’s characteristic of our secular age regarding sex.

I use the term schizophrenia in this way: dictionary.reference.com/browse/schizophrenia

2. a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.

You might notice that secular society usually contradicts itself over the issues of sex. Usually, they say sex causes no harm, not even when children engage in it, ergo we ought give children condoms.

Ad hocs tend to be created to bolster a sides positions. The term homophobia fits this purpose. Agephobia exists too when secular society flips out over a thirty year old having sex with a willing fourteen year old. But you’ll note the absence of the term agephobia in any of the rhetoric. But another ad hoc must be created to explain agephobia. The ad hoc explanation is “harm.” What harm? Few can explain. They just know it mystically exists out there. What they usually are referring to but have no idea they are is PTSD. But why would they be harmed if they are willing? The ad hoc explanation of “A fourteen year old can not consent.”

Basically, in terms of sexual selection we are dealing with prejudices and discrimination. We all have prejudices formed one way or another and we all discriminate. But we may feel compelled to create ad hoc moral explanations for our prejudices or what traits we discriminate against and attempt to justify them as universally objective truths.

I would argue pedophilia is immoral but based upon my views of the existence of innocence in children, what that innocence is, and the role of an older person to guide the younger person in morally appropriate directions.

One might argue my views of the innocence of a child and what the proper role of an older person should be are subjective views. And maybe they are. But they are views I’ve come to believe in and I’m confident they are true.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t pederasty pretty common around the world, pre-Christian? Maybe this is the last Christian sexual more that most secularists and Christians agree upon.

That’s not entirely correct.

Catholic Italy during the 17th Century was one of the most bisexual places in Europe and on earth. And pederasty and pedophilia were very common. So, common they were normalized like homosexuality today is in the United States and Europe.

This was in the City of Rome too. And it seems unlikely if not impossible the Cardinals and Popes had no idea how common place and accepted it was. It was a normal part of many young boys apprenticeships as painters in Italy. If the painter had several boys training under him he usually picked one out to be his lover.

Leonardo da Vinci was supposedly not only gay and a pederast but a pedophile too. Supposedly he was proudly so.

Caravaggio left us a famous portrait of one of the boys apprenticing under him that he turned into his lover.

Here he is:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KZa9KyExL.SL500_AA300.jpg

It was normal then in Italy to portray certain young males in effeminate ways. It was homoerotica. Everyone knew it. That’s why Leonardo portrayed the figure of the Apostle John as womanish in the famous Last Supper painting that Dan Brown in his Da Vinci Code claims was a female Apostle (Mary Magdalene I believe) that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been trying to hide from the public and the masses.

But a lot of prepubescent boys throughout Italy and Sicily used to get sodomized by adult Italian and Sicilian men. This kind of sexual conduct was less acceptable in the cultures of Spain, Germany, and England.

But so far as I know… no one in Italy was trying to get gay marriage or gay pedophilia marriage instituted during the 17th Century. I suspect that is why the hierarchy of the Church tolerated so much rampant homosexuality and pedophilia under their noses throughout Italy.

I know why Christians think it’s wrong, but I’d like to know why a secularist might think it’s intrinsically wrong. I guess because they think it causes harm. But, what if people decide it doesn’t cause harm? Would most secularists still think it’s wrong? Again, I thought of this because some soldiers were saying what an accepted practice it is in some parts of the world. I’m sure people there wouldn’t consider it too harmful.

The harm factor is their greatest received truth. “If it does not cause harm than thou can do it.”

That’s how they seem to see it.

It is unusual in Muslim Nigeria for 30 year old men married to one or more women to marry an additional wife that is 14 years of age. No one thinks it’s crazy there. And it would not have caused the uproar in the Christian world many, many decades ago that it does today in the secular world.

When enough people believe something others will join in believing that. No one likes to be the odd one out. And they’ll socialize among those that think like them. No matter what they believe they’ll claim it an absolute truth and claim the sky will fall if the other side wins.

Everyone likes to use Nazi Germany as an example for a lot of things. But what do you think the Nazi German believed about the views of his opposition?

In secular democracies, especially in big cities, you have so many different camps. The political leaders try to find a common ground all of them can compromise on. I think this kind of happens with age consent laws for sex too. Most agree an age must must be picked where consent can begin. Many seem to have democratically arrived at the notion of 16.

In some states of the U.S. it might be a little lower or a little higher. But 16 seems to be the most typical age of consent.

But rest assure that if tomorrow they decided to drop the age to 13 most will give the ad hoc explanation that 16 and 14 year olds aren’t harmed by sex but 12 year olds are.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

TimeEntrance said, “My feeling is that pedophilia is immoral (even if thought about) but attraction to young teens that have entered puberty and developed the characteristic in their physiques most adults find sexually attractive, is neither abnormal or immoral. That it’s criminalized points to a schizophrenia that’s characteristic of our secular age regarding sex.”

Honestly speaking, pedophilia is against the law in the United States! The FBI has a list of sex offenders state by state. If an adult has a sexual attraction to a teenager then they should immediately talk to a doctor that will more than likely direct them to a qualified a psychologist or psychiatrist. Also, your usage of schizophrenia is demeaning in the context which you have used.

Clarification:
First off, the United States of America is a secular country.(1) Afghanistan is not a secular country.
1.“The United States of America - While there is ambiguity within the constitutions of some individual states, the United States does not have an official religion at the Federal level. There are some traditions and customs regarding the use of a Bible when taking oaths in court, or for the President of the United States during the oath of office, but neither of these are required by law. The 1st amendment of the United States Constitution is written as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Further, Article 6 of the United States Constitution prohibits the use of any religious test as qualification for any public office.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

TimeEntrance said,“We disagreed about the harm done to a fourteen year old having sex with an adult be it a heterosexual or homosexual encounter. He argued it causes harm. I argued it does not. Speaking of two people attracted to each other that want to have sex with one another that is. I’m even open to the possibility it does not cause “harm” to children eight or ten years old–depending on the context. And by harm what I’m referring to is PTSD. But whether or not something causes “harm” is only a principle for agnostics and atheists as to whether something should be regard as moral (or amoral) or immoral.”

Religious or non-religious doesn’t matter to the FBI. If the person is eighteen or younger then the FBI is watching out for them and so should a parent(s), neighbors, and friends. Secondly, your mention of PTSD. I’d like to present two excerpts from the Mayo Clinic which states the following about Post-traumatic stress disorder:

1. Kinds of traumatic events
   *Post-traumatic stress disorder is especially common among those who have served in combat. It’s sometimes called “shell shock,” “battle fatigue” or “combat stress.”

The most common events leading to the development of PTSD include:

Combat exposure
Rape
Childhood neglect and physical abuse
Sexual molestation
Physical attack
Being threatened with a weapon

But many other traumatic events also can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder, including fire, natural disaster, mugging, robbery, assault, civil conflict, car accident, plane crash, torture, kidnapping, life-threatening medical diagnosis, terrorist attack and other extreme or life-threatening events. *

1. ** Causes**

*You can develop post-traumatic stress disorder when you go through, see or learn about an event that causes intense fear, helplessness or horror.

Doctors aren’t sure why some people get post-traumatic stress disorder. As with most mental health problems, PTSD is probably caused by a complex mix of:

Your inherited mental health risks, such as an increased risk of anxiety and depression
Your life experiences, including the amount and severity of trauma you've gone through since early childhood
The inherited aspects of your personality — often called your temperament
The way your brain regulates the chemicals and hormones your body releases in response to stress

mayoclinic.com/health/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/DS00246/METHOD=print

 

[Auntie_A]

Time Entrance: You frequently cited PTSD as the only harm. May I suggest that simply crossing over the age boundary with a younger person puts that young person into a hyperconsciousness of themselves as a submissive sex object and does not allow that person’s autonomy to develop toward a healthy sexual maturity.

Childhood, including the teenage years (and in some cases even the early twenties) are about growing, developing, learning about oneself, and maturing. There is no need for pedophiliac initiation. Kids learn well enough through their families , friends, and school’s sex education (imperfect as some of them are). The added strain of seduction by an older person puts the younger person in a position of being used. This is sort of like why the pursuing and seducing of an employee by a manager is called sexual harassment–it is a conflict of interest, usually putting the younger or more vulnerable person in a position where they are not free to act independently. (The employee fears loss of job, the youth fears the elder, whom he/she was taught to respect and obey, and loses his or her own independent maturing and autonomy, sexually and psychologically.

I realize there are people in our culture and other cultures who practice having sex with teens and younger children. I do not see any aspect of this as being positive for the younger person, except for them to learn sexual submission to an elder. It’s really a type of slavery no matter how much you want to sugar coat it.

 

[Bradski]

But rest assure that if tomorrow they decided to drop the age to 13 most will give the ad hoc explanation that 16 and 14 year olds aren’t harmed by sex but 12 year olds are.

The church allows it at 14. But whatever the age, you’ll never get a consensus.

 

[TimeEntrance]

The church allows it at 14. But whatever the age, you’ll never get a consensus.

Yeah, I agree, Bradski.

Logistics, I have an extended family member that says he was sexually abused by a brother and sister as a child. I’ve known quite a few people that were sexually abused as children. And I’ve been in the V.A. with men treated for PTSD for everything from combat stresses to being sexually abused while in the military.

What I was told in the V.A. is that PTSD is very rare. Most people tend to recover from trauma.

As I’ve said in the past on this forum, I don’t have PTSD after being shot multiple times. However, if one were to watch TV (war movies at least) they would think this is impossible. Albeit, I suffered from PTSD during the several weeks I was awoke in the hospital. But my mind quickly recovered. I’ve been in auto crashes and violently assaulted too. But perhaps the most mentally distressing thing, which no doubt the Mayo Clinc has zero clue about, is years of crack addiction, the paranoia and fear it instills, should induce the most life long PTSD problems–in at least me.

Basically, I’m aware there are multitudes of ways to acquire PTSD. However, I don’t think you read my post. If you did you did not understand it.

And so far as I can tell it is quite normal for adult men to find certain looking teenage girls sexually attractive. If it is normal then I’m not willing to deduce from that it is abnormal. Or let me put it in terms of female bonobos that have sex like nymphomaniacs with many different male bonobos throughout their life. It’s normal for female bonobos, therefore, I’m not willing to deduce it is abnormal. Female bonobo mothers are also known to have sex with their male children, with it only becoming taboo among the bonobos after the child is past the age of 6 or 8 I believe. What is the objective mind to deduce from this incestuous pedophilia? Homosexual advocates point to the frequent homosexual sex among bonobos as evidence that homosexual sex is “natural” (so is infanticide and beating up females among male chimpanzees), does not “harm” consenting adults, and all opposition to it is a result of subjective religious morality.

As I stated, I regard pedophilia as immoral (among humans, perhaps not among the bonobos), just the mere sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I gave my reasons why. But I don’t not regard a 30 year old person sexually attracted to a 14 or 16 year old as abnormal nor immoral. And there is no reason to read anything more into that. If you oppose homosexuality I could read into that that you believe homosexuals should be lynched. Or I could read into that that you secretly harbor homosexual desires. If you are an advocate of homosexuality I could read into that that you secretly harbor homosexual desires.

Auntie A, I assume you are a Western person and I know you’re a product of the mid 20th Century at least. You’ll assume a 17 year old is the same as a 7 year old and you’ll assume this some objective basic universal truth. That was never true for most the history of the Christian world. In many parts of the world it still is not. The is a term called “indoctrination.” And most societies “indoctrinate” its people in one or more beliefs.

Sex is the way human beings reproduce. This is what I was taught in biology. And for biology a 14 year old girl getting impregnated is an amoral issue. It may come that 20 years from now most in the Western society are indoctrinated by the lobbyist, interest groups, and powers that be that homosexuality is “natural” and good and a 21 year old woman pregnant (even if married) is “unnatural” and bad. The science of biology will still deduce the pregnancy of a 21 year old female an amoral issue, no matter how many ad hocs people try to throw on as scientific laws as mathematically predictable as gravitational forces acting on an object thrown in the air.

But assuming a 14 year old girl getting pregnant (for humans that requires sex) is immoral, what is one to deduce about the Christian God given the Virgin Mary is said that have been impregnated at age 14? More ad hocs to protect that dogma? Of course. And if one is convinced no 40 year old woman can date and marry a man that will slap her around, treat her like a dog, and all 14 year old girls can only be harmed for life by having a single encounter of sex with a 30 year old man, ad hocs will have to be created to protect those sacred, unquestionable beliefs.

(Logistics, one other point: I never said anything about having sex with a person under age 18 being illegal in the United States. I’m aware of that. At age 20 I had sex with a 17 year old that was several inches taller than me and probably 50 pounds or more heavier than I was. She was a sexually active teen, and apparently had an STD at the time. Fortunately, I wore a condom. I did 90 days in jail and 2 years on paper for that. I would not advise any man have sex with a 17 year old, and I would go even further and say if you’re 18 and male don’t just assume the girl you meet is the same age as you or older, as she might be younger.)

 

[John_Savage]

For the record, nobody in my unit nor I defended the practice. They were pointing out that it was a cultural norm.

I was merely speculating whether there’s a non-religious argument against the practice. I’m a Catholic so I don’t need a secular argument.

The people who have/do practice pedophilia either don’t think it causes harm or that the harms can be mitigated. It’s been a common practice, at one time, in Japan, the Med., and other parts of world. They clearly didn’t think it was too bad.

So, let me ask this: If people can show, as the Guardian article suggests, that the harms are non-existent, minor, or can be mediated by some precautions, would there be a secular argument against it?