For example - the question was put forward "if homosexuality is correct and the only thing that seperates it from other supposedly deviant acts is the term 'informed consent' or just 'consent' then who's to say anything else is wrong."
Well - you think the answer to that would be obvious but there were a number of the kids in that forum who were seriously accepting that if it could be demonstrated that "kids" were consenting it would therefore be OK. There were those in the forum who responded with great offense at such positions but they were eventually ignored into silence.
So I put the question out for my fellow freepers to discuss: If informed consent can be demonstrated do you think that "child porn" and "pedophilia" should be viewed differently? After all - I have seen plenty of articles and papers in the past couple of years stating that very thing.
Part of the reason I ask this is these people obviously found it within themselves to justify sexually abusing their own children - did they believe it was wrong? Were they ashamed? Or are we repressing the possibility that such behavior is consentual in nature?
Let me be clear - I find pedophilia and child pornography immoral to the nth degree... in fact - there are no degress of separation. I find pornography of any kind immoral - but that's a different discussion entirely. I mention this, however, to make it clear that I'm not trying to defend anyone.
My whole premise in the question is that we've so brazenly accepted what was considered to be previously be deviant sexual behavior and made it normal - why not child/adult sexual encounters?
Lastly - let us remember - just as homosexuality has been practiced historically and always has been - child/adult sexual encounters are nothing new in supposed advanced/historical cultures and so have other so-called "deviant" sexual practices. Is it not possible that we should rethink our views on other behaviors just as we have on homosexuality?
That is exactly what the perverse among the population are counting on.
Let's be clear on the underlying assumption of this question: in and of themselves, the acts are never wrong.
Instead, acts are wrong or not, based on the context in which they're performed.
In other words, it's moral relativism.
Perhaps a better question might be: "is there any action that is intrinsically wrong?"
See, the Interlock's criminal, pedophile pornographer Kinsey and the Supreme Court (who's okayed "faked" cyber child porn -- as if there's some substantive difference in the real ejaculations intended) for more.
That is funny. I have seen many papers and books all my life stating that it is wrong, a sin, deviant, child abuse, and dangerous to a child. In addition, sex with a parent or relative has been painted as incest. Sex with strangers has been painted as rape of a child.
Do you mean that we only listen to the latest information as a few try to publish their sick obsessions to win approval of society? What is wrong with these people that would go to so much trouble to abuse a child? Are they unable to perform heterosexual sex?
Or, are we to only listen to the proponents of sexual deviancy as they try to promote their views and summarily then discard all opposing ideas?
There are a few out there who are publically already making the claim that child/adult encounters are, in fact, perfectly okay. And in the name of 'free speech,' these people are tolerated rather than being lynched as would have occurred 50 years ago. I'm beginning to wonder if the lynching thing was always so bad.
What's to rethink?
There is a world of difference between "tolerating" and "normalizing". That is why the battle will not die down.
And although "tolerating" is possible when "consenting adults" are involved (even though in my opinion "normalizing" is not) where children are involved it's apples and oranges.
This idea is alive in the land. It is penetrating mainstream culture at various points, and the "monster-NAMBLA" archetype is slowly morphing into something else --- something less odious and less roundly condemned. The flood of pornography available on the net certainly plays a role in the change.
As impossible as it seemed just a few decades ago when they first engaged the issue, sexual liberationists are winning the battle for the minds and hearts of large portions of the American people. They wanted people to think of sexual expression as nothing more significant than a sneeze. And guess what? Based on their behavior, tens of millions of Americans now agree with them. It is hard to imagine any counter-force gaining steam in today's culture. On the contrary, I see attitudes becoming more and more libidinous, up to and including advocacy groups publicly speaking out in defense of the kind of people we read about in today's report.
I have no problem with children as young as 16 getting married, as long as it is mandatory that the parent give permission for the union. My reasons are that, for the most part, parents show more maturity and wisdom than children, there are exceptions to the general rule of emotional maturity, and if a person is mature enough to have an intimate relationship, they are mature enough to commit to a lasting intimate union.
There will be a deeper understanding of sexuality and of harshness and mercy to be had by this fall in the morass, but the life saving effort has to begin in earnest by folks of good hearts such as yourself.
#2, 'Consent' is a concept which has little meaning on an 11 year old boy. His 'consent' was influenced by the uncle or older male friend - his mind was not fully capable of deciding on his own. There is a reason why 18 is considered the legal age of adulthood for citizens - it is only after that point they are mature enough to make their own decisions and take one their own responsibilities.
#3, Moral standards and ethical values do not change. These are the fundamental building blocks of society - and you cannot assume that 're-thinking' these values will not have a disastrous impact on society. The last time a country 're-thought' its ethical values of human life, over 6 million Jews were slaughtered. "Revolutions" in moral principles usually end up in violence, death, and anarchy.