Huruma's editorial on that one topic.
Options
BoldChild
Members Posts: 11,415 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://huruma.tumblr.com/page/6 People have been asking for the thread, but I don't think it's around anymore.
I have yet to hear a good argument as to why ? (the attraction itself, not actual child-adult sex) is pathological or inappropriate. If sexual attraction itself is healthy and acceptable, the object of one’s sexual attraction makes no difference. If there’s nothing inherently perverse or ? about sex we should stop associating virginity with “innocence” and “purity” and concede that there’s nothing wrong with viewing children in a sexual context. Anyone who argues that sexual feelings toward members of the same sex is natural and healthy should be consistent and apply the same reasoning to ? -sexuality. Discrimination and prejudice against pedophiles is as unjustified and as serious of a problem as discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered people is. The hysteria and emotional knee ? reaction that many people feel when the issue of child-adult sex/? -sexuality is brought up prevents them from analyzing the issue objectively and realizing that pedophiles are another disadvantaged minority.
As for child-adult sex itself, I won’t deny that it can directly or indirectly harm children (ie. adults can use their authority to coerce children into having unwanted sex, the child might later come to regret the act for whatever reason, especially if they live in a culture that will socialize them to view the act as having been inherently exploitative and victimizing, ) but what makes the action itself unethical or wrong beyond the possible harm that it might cause? If child-adult sex causes children pleasure (with no long-term costs), it would not only not be inherently bad, it would be instrumentally good and worth encouraging. In practice, child-adult sex harms children often enough and to an extent that justifies discouraging it in all situations but there are at least some possible scenarios where children could benefit from or at least be unharmed by sexual contact with an adult and the justification for discouraging it should always be the possible negative consequences of child-adult sex and not the inherent ‘inappropriateness’ of the act.
The typical counter argument is that children cannot consent to sex. I think that most people who claim this are confusing informed consent with rational consent but it’s besides the point because consent has no inherent value, it’s only useful in helping us to estimate how likely it is that our actions will harm or benefit others. Adults make children do many things not only without their consent but against it. What’s directly relevant is whether or not children are harmed or benefited by child-adult sex. I don’t think (I could be wrong) that there’s any real evidence to suggest that viewing simulated, computer-generated child pornography encourages adults with a preexisting attraction toward children to molest them any more than people become homosexual by watching ? porn. It boggles my mind how someone can actually spend a decade or so in jail for viewing simulated child pornography that does not depict any real life or existing children and even another decade (or so) after being released as a registered “sex offender”
I have yet to hear a good argument as to why ? (the attraction itself, not actual child-adult sex) is pathological or inappropriate. If sexual attraction itself is healthy and acceptable, the object of one’s sexual attraction makes no difference. If there’s nothing inherently perverse or ? about sex we should stop associating virginity with “innocence” and “purity” and concede that there’s nothing wrong with viewing children in a sexual context. Anyone who argues that sexual feelings toward members of the same sex is natural and healthy should be consistent and apply the same reasoning to ? -sexuality. Discrimination and prejudice against pedophiles is as unjustified and as serious of a problem as discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered people is. The hysteria and emotional knee ? reaction that many people feel when the issue of child-adult sex/? -sexuality is brought up prevents them from analyzing the issue objectively and realizing that pedophiles are another disadvantaged minority.
As for child-adult sex itself, I won’t deny that it can directly or indirectly harm children (ie. adults can use their authority to coerce children into having unwanted sex, the child might later come to regret the act for whatever reason, especially if they live in a culture that will socialize them to view the act as having been inherently exploitative and victimizing, ) but what makes the action itself unethical or wrong beyond the possible harm that it might cause? If child-adult sex causes children pleasure (with no long-term costs), it would not only not be inherently bad, it would be instrumentally good and worth encouraging. In practice, child-adult sex harms children often enough and to an extent that justifies discouraging it in all situations but there are at least some possible scenarios where children could benefit from or at least be unharmed by sexual contact with an adult and the justification for discouraging it should always be the possible negative consequences of child-adult sex and not the inherent ‘inappropriateness’ of the act.
The typical counter argument is that children cannot consent to sex. I think that most people who claim this are confusing informed consent with rational consent but it’s besides the point because consent has no inherent value, it’s only useful in helping us to estimate how likely it is that our actions will harm or benefit others. Adults make children do many things not only without their consent but against it. What’s directly relevant is whether or not children are harmed or benefited by child-adult sex. I don’t think (I could be wrong) that there’s any real evidence to suggest that viewing simulated, computer-generated child pornography encourages adults with a preexisting attraction toward children to molest them any more than people become homosexual by watching ? porn. It boggles my mind how someone can actually spend a decade or so in jail for viewing simulated child pornography that does not depict any real life or existing children and even another decade (or so) after being released as a registered “sex offender”
Comments
-
The thing he does not realize is that a child is not fully developed mentally or physically. Even if a child consents to sex with an adult, the child does not know the full details on sexual involvement or the responsibility/reprecussions that come with it. When adults make children do things without or against the child's consent, most times it is a parent/guardian or teacher who is doing good for the child's benefit, for example, eating your vegetables or school work. Sex is clearly a different thing, and in no way benefits a child. Huruma might be a ? and if so, he should just admit it. I don't think children should be viewed in that way and anyone who finds themselves attracted to children should be willing to get professional help, imo.
-
This ? is top "WTF posts" ever on the IC.
-
If you re read the last paragraph, he's actually making the argument that ? isn't wrong either. The ? wrong with this guy? ? little kids is cool @huruma? Dude is seriously a threat to society.
You on some Crime and Punishment ? . Asking the question, is a crime really a crime if people benefited from it. Its a deep philosophical question but leave the kids out of it b. -
What happened to Huruma?
-
man ? huruma is a practicing ? i bet if you check his Hard drive he has child porn on his computer . Feds do your damn job and get this muthafucka off these E-streets
-
He's African and more than likely Muslim....what you expect.
-
No disrespect, I'm surprised you knew about my blog or that this was important enough to restart. I'm not in the mood to re-clarify my position, my argument is already there.The thing he does not realize is that a child is not fully developed mentally or physically. Even if a child consents to sex with an adult, the child does not know the full details on sexual involvement or the responsibility/reprecussions that come with it.
I'd probably disagree but I don't think a capacity for informed consent is directly relevant anyways.If you re read the last paragraph, he's actually making the argument that ? isn't wrong either.
I don't have a particularly complicated view on child-adult sex or any other ethical issue, at least not when it comes to the basic first principle that I'd use to justify my position. All of my views are based on the basic understanding that pleasure is what's intrinsically good and pain alone is ntrinsically bad. If children suffer as a result as having some kind of sexual contact with an adult then child-adult sex is bad *for that reason*. You may not think child-adult sex that is pleasurable, or at least neutral, for children is practically possible but as long as we can imagine a logically possible universe where a child does not suffer as a result of being sexually intimate with an adult, I don't see what it is that makes child-adult sex *inherently* bad or wrong. It doesn't seem to me that the counter argument is actually based on a concern for children rather than an aversion to something that's culturally taboo. I stated in the original thread repeatedly that child-adult sex should probably remain illegal and systematically discouraged considering the harm it can cause.
As for being a '? ', a 'threat to society' etc, you don't have to agree with me but an argument falls or stands on it's own, it has nothing to do with the character of the person presenting the argument. -
-
No disrespect, I'm surprised you knew about my blog or that this was important enough to restart. I'm not in the mood to re-clarify my position, my argument is already there.
Nah, I've known about your blog for a long time. n/h
I posted this because the people have been asking about you, these IC streets ain't been as hot without you.
-
No disrespect, I'm surprised you knew about my blog or that this was important enough to restart. I'm not in the mood to re-clarify my position, my argument is already there.The thing he does not realize is that a child is not fully developed mentally or physically. Even if a child consents to sex with an adult, the child does not know the full details on sexual involvement or the responsibility/reprecussions that come with it.
I'd probably disagree but I don't think a capacity for informed consent is directly relevant anyways.If you re read the last paragraph, he's actually making the argument that ? isn't wrong either.
I don't have a particularly complicated view on child-adult sex or any other ethical issue, at least not when it comes to the basic first principle that I'd use to justify my position. All of my views are based on the basic understanding that pleasure is what's intrinsically good and pain alone is ntrinsically bad. If children suffer as a result as having some kind of sexual contact with an adult then child-adult sex is bad *for that reason*. You may not think child-adult sex that is pleasurable, or at least neutral, for children is practically possible but as long as we can imagine a logically possible universe where a child does not suffer as a result of being sexually intimate with an adult, I don't see what it is that makes child-adult sex *inherently* bad or wrong. It doesn't seem to me that the counter argument is actually based on a concern for children rather than an aversion to something that's culturally taboo. I stated in the original thread repeatedly that child-adult sex should probably remain illegal and systematically discouraged considering the harm it can cause.
As for being a '? ', a 'threat to society' etc, you don't have to agree with me but an argument falls or stands on it's own, it has nothing to do with the character of the person presenting the argument.
*long post advisory*
You have the wrong idea of me. Your thinking of me as someone who gets his standards and morals set by society, and in doing so, think my opinion are formed by society, and so, that I am not able to picture what you are saying in the theory of "a perfect world in which kids did not receive harm" from sexual relations with an adult. That's far from fact however.
On topic of your theory and argument however, I say you are wrong because even in theory, it is not possible for an adult to have sexual intercourse with a child and not harm the child. A child looks up to an adult as an authority figure who sets the rules, then they might agree with or disagree with the rules, and chose to follow them or break them, but the fact is that in human relations between a authority figure and a regular citizen must have set boundaries or else society crumbles. That's like saying, a cop can rob a bank with a thief and as long as no one gets hurt its not inherently wrong. Is it wrong though? of course. in this case, the authoritive figures are adults, and like with everything else, adults put rules on when and with who to have sex with on kids, once the authority crosses that boundary and starts having sex with the kid they played down rules for, the definition and concept of authoritive figure will begin to crumble, and with that, so will society. So even on a highly theoretical, in a perfect world setting, your theory still doesn't work. And that's just looking at it from a social perspective and not a political and most importantly, psychological perspective.
The debate of "is a crime a crime if society benefits" has been going on for centuries. at its most basic level, its a debate of absolute law vs. law put in places from the perspective of a ruling society. Its a deep philosophical question, but at the same time, I got a little sister yo, and I see first hand how innocent they are, so leave the kids out of it son. And even if this is not your own personal belief, what to you is just innocent theorizing can be viewed by someone else and potentially be harmful to someone. With all that said, leave the kids alone b. -
Yeah Huruma...start posting regularly again...even though I never agree with you, discussion is a lot more enjoyable when one party is extreme in his position
-
This ? Huruma got a couple dozen body parts in his freezer.
-
His argument is futile for this reason: there is nothing wrong with it so long as no one is harmed. However all scientific evidence indicates that it is always harmful in some way.
-
Proof/link?RodrigueZz wrote: »His argument is futile for this reason: there is nothing wrong with it so long as no one is harmed. However all scientific evidence indicates that it is always harmful in some way. -
Could be a learning tool? dad jailed over teen daughter's 'sexual education'
Mark Russell August 31, 2012
A father of three who claimed he had sex with his teenage daughter for more than three years to teach her sex education so she could satisfy her boyfriend was today jailed for at least five-and-a-half years.
County Court Judge Michael Bourke said the father, 44, had breached and exploited his daughter's trust and vulnerability and had no insight into the evil of his offending.
"These are serious and disturbing offences," Judge Bourke told the father, who is married with three daughters.
"I am not persuaded you are in any insightful way remorseful."
The judge said the father, who cannot be named, lacked any understanding into the culpability and gravity of what he had done and his family was the same.
Character references for the father had been provided to the court by his wife, mother, mother-in-law and 15-year-old youngest daughter. -
You have the wrong idea of me. Your thinking of me as someone who gets his standards and morals set by society, and in doing so, think my opinion are formed by society, and so, that I am not able to picture what you are saying in the theory of "a perfect world in which kids did not receive harm" from sexual relations with an adult. That's far from fact however.
I didn't assume this.On topic of your theory and argument however, I say you are wrong because even in theory, it is not possible for an adult to have sexual intercourse with a child and not harm the child.
We either define 'harm' differently or I just disagree. I literally can't imagine a universe with square triangles because to say that a shape is simultaneously squared and triangular is contradictory. Even if harmless child-adult sex was practically impossible, and at least some people claim to have had harmless sexual contact with an adult as a child, I don't see how it could be logically impossible in the same way.I see first hand how innocent they are
I don't see why lack of sexual experience or sexuality would have anything to do with 'innocence'.what to you is just innocent theorizing can be viewed by someone else and potentially be harmful to someone. With all that said
I'm not sure what you mean but, in my opinion, a moral system that does not revolve around happiness/suffering can justify what I consider to be unnecessary harm and undesirable behavior. I think it's necessary to clarify and prioritize what's important, a monistic theory of value is necessary for moral consistency. -
Huruma be wilding out... Get it?
-
I see nothing wrong with ? .
-
Sexual attraction, sexual relationships, and sexual encounters between two people where one is in a position of power is inappropriate b/c you're willing yourself onto another person when they are vulnerable mentally. Thus, your sexual encounter with someone who is unable to defend themselves or make up their own mind about their part in the interaction, is quite simply exploitation.
When the recipient of the sexual attraction (in the case of ? , a child), then it's sexual exploitation of someone who not only is vulnerable and can't make a mature decision about sex, but is physically/biologically not ready to have sex. -
Sexual attraction, sexual relationships, and sexual encounters between two people where one is in a position of power is inappropriate b/c you're willing yourself onto another person when they are vulnerable mentally. Thus, your sexual encounter with someone who is unable to defend themselves or make up their own mind about their part in the interaction, is quite simply exploitation.
When the recipient of the sexual attraction (in the case of ? , a child), then it's sexual exploitation of someone who not only is vulnerable and can't make a mature decision about sex, but is physically/biologically not ready to have sex.
Just so there is no confusion, I flagged you for having a naked male in your avi.
-
huruma probably somewhere in Thailand right now...
-
Sexual attraction, sexual relationships, and sexual encounters between two people where one is in a position of power is inappropriate b/c you're willing yourself onto another person when they are vulnerable mentally. Thus, your sexual encounter with someone who is unable to defend themselves or make up their own mind about their part in the interaction, is quite simply exploitation.
When the recipient of the sexual attraction (in the case of ? , a child), then it's sexual exploitation of someone who not only is vulnerable and can't make a mature decision about sex, but is physically/biologically not ready to have sex.
Just so there is no confusion, I flagged you for having a naked male in your avi.
-
This thread is full of titangraphs.
-
I'd probably disagree but I don't think a capacity for informed consent is directly relevant anyways.
When a person is not mentally developed to understand what they're consenting to, the other party is responsible. It's deceptive on the adult's part. It's kind of like an adult salesman tricking a young adult, who may not fully understand the product, into a deal.
