I know you are looking for a philosophical answer, so I apologize in advance, but here’s my (anecdotal) reasoning:
As a social worker, I’ve seen what happens when adults have sex with kids. These kids wind up becoming extremely violent towards others or themselves, killing/torturing the family pets, burning the house down, etc. In many cases the children develop profound mental disorders, such as bipolar disorder and psychotic disorders.
Just the effects alone make it clear to me that adults should not have sex with children.
Anyway, after reviewing your OP, since when have adult-on-adult rape or sexual assault of a child been considered sex acts ? Come on, now. If a dude has sex with the family dog, are you saying that non-Christians will regard that as okey-dokey too? (and if not, why not? <incredulously> you non Christian types think everything else is okay!)
BTW, I’m Christian. I just can’t stand the snotty, judgemental attitude implied in the OP.
I consider sex anything but trivial. I wouldn’t object to pedophilia and rape as strenuously as I do if I weren’t aware that sex can and often does have a wide-ranging and massive impact on a person physically, psychologically and socially. This includes the awareness that for some people, sex is sacred, though it isn’t for me personally. I don’t consider sex to have any inherent significance, but I don’t consider traffic lights to have any inherent significance either: significance is something that is assigned, something that happens in the interaction of thinking beings with other thinking beings and their environment, and if I refuse to acknowledge it I’m liable to get myself hit by a car. Even if sex were trivial for me, it would be stupidity on an epic scale for me to deny its non-triviality to others.
Unfortunately, the opinions you’re soliciting were formed in the real world, and expecting people to exclude a large, highly significant in the context, and apparently arbitrarily-chosen portion of the real world from consideration in this discussion seems unproductive. I can’t divorce the issues of STD transmission and pregnancy from my disapproval of pedophilia[1], one of the lynchpins of which is the irresponsibility of children. There’s nothing inherently wrong with children being irresponsible, but it’s often unreasonable to expect them to be sufficiently educated on the subject of sex to even know that these things are issues, or to consistently be able to acquire and know how and remember to use prophylactics. An adult may provide such education and devices, but what happens when a child who’s had sex with an adult goes on, as seems not wholly implausible, to have sex with other children? It seems likely to be of import in fewer cases, but there’s also the matter of the direct physical harm a child-sized person may sustain having sex with an adult-sized person.
Even safe, physically harmless sex has psychological repercussions with which children may not be equipped to deal; even a child so equipped is unlikely to be able to handle the incredible social backlash should the relationship be exposed, and, should it never be, is unlikely to enjoy conducting it entirely in the closet. Also, importantly, there’s usually a severe power imbalance in sexual relationships involving a child and an adult: children are generally taught to regard all adults as authority figures, adults are larger physically, adults have greater financial independance and more rights. This goes double if the adult is someone, like a teacher or a parent, who has a less nebulous form of authority. Such power imbalances can be problematic or outright coercive.
Which brings me to rape. Consent is a fixation of mine. Sex is something a great many people pursue often and enthusiastically; rape perverts that, which contributes greatly to its horror factor. Granted, spinach is also something many people, myself included, pursue often and enthusiastically, and yet if I had to choose between being raped and being forced at gunpoint to eat a bowl of spinach I would choose the latter without hesitation and even without salt, because eating a bowl of spinach has none of the psychological weight for me that sex does. It’s just spinach. To bring this post full-circle, spinach is trivial.
[1] I should say, of sex with children. People can want sex with children as much as they please. I find it disturbing, but it’s none of my business. It’s when they act on the desire that I have a problem with it.
My husband worked for a few years, as a special police officer at Children’s Hospital in D.C. One of the things he had to do on a frightentingly routine basis was to restrain a parent while their child was being medically treated for sexual trauma; I’m talking physical trauma. He saw an eight-year-old boy once who needed 27 stitches to repair the damage that had been done by anal penetration. Surely you can’t argue that this is less physically harmful than eating a bag of candy for dinner?!?!? The fact of the matter is, if we leave the emotional stuff out of it, that a child’s body is not designed for sexual activity. They are simply not physically mature enough for it.
Is it really necessary to explain the difference between consensual sex between adults and rape or pedophilia? TGWATY seems to lack the most basic moral foundation. I know many will attack me based on the previous statements but I ask you to consider the OP and ask yourself, Does this person understand the meaning of morality?
I don’t really understand people who base their morality on god, the bible, or any external source, simply because it is that source. If God appeared to you, and said “i’m fine with rape, in fact, i positively encourage it” would you immediately support rape?
I don’t agree with you that people do view sex as trivial either. Some do, but most don’t. If everyone viewed sex as trivial why would the majority of adults be in exclusive sexual relationships? Rape is wrong because one party is forcing actions on another. It is considered so heinous because it causes physical pain, and severe emotional pain and trauma.
Regarding sex with children. If it is non consenting, then it is wrong for the reasons above. In fact it is even more heinous because children will likely suffer even more pain, and will not be able to cope with it as well as adults. If it is consensual, then it is still wrong, because children are not fully developed - they are unable to fully understand the consequences of their actions. Research has shown that even teenager’s brains are not fully “adult” - specifically regions of the brain involved in planning, weighing risks and rewards etc are still not fully mature.
However, any other act, if it is performed by mutually consenting parties who fully understand the consequences of their actions, is fine.
Seems your other points are being duly answered… I will attack the idea of trivial sex. Trivial sex would be true if people were shagging in the corridors and workdesks without much concern. Sex is not like a handshake.
I would rather say that sex has become natural… religious views tend to put sex on a pedestal. Something “sacred” or special to be done with “love”. Others make it into sin.
So I would say sex has become something less exalted… not trivial. You can now be single and have sex without someone being cast from their home as a whore. Sex is being viewed more correctly I would say… rather than negatively.
As for you example then... rape and fucking kids is "bad" sex. Its forced upon someone. Not natural or trivial either (to the victim at least).
I would be horrified if I were at gunpoint forced put a dead organism (that had been frozen and then unfrozen and then packed into a can) into my mouth and then was forced to use my teeth to grind up the organism and swallow it, causing it to be disintegrated by my stomach acids and then ejected from anus. Horrible.
Actually I think the OP has some value but the question was stated incorrectly. Should have been thus:
IF you consider sex to be a trivial physical act for the sole purpose of physical pleasure THEN explain how non-violent rape is worse than being forced to commit other trival physical acts for the sole purpose of pleasure (such as eating foods).
Very interesting OP, actually. I do believe I can answer it quite succinctly, although my answer may leave other questions open that the OP might want to then explore. We’ll see.
Anyway: I am not religious, and don’t base my morality on the bible. So I do not favor laws against murder because the bible says murder is wrong. I favor them because I personally don’t want to be murdered, and I don’t want my loved ones to be murdered. I believe that having laws against murder in place and enforced makes those things less likely.
I favor laws against rape because I personally don’t want to be raped, and I don’t want my loved ones to be raped. I believe that having laws against rape in place and enforced makes those things less likely.
I favor laws against children having sex because, if I have children myself, I won’t want them to have sex while they are still children. I believe that having laws against children having sex in place and enforced makes that less likely.
Briefly, I would say that the inconsistencies pointed at by the OP are explained by the fact that contrarily to the his assumption (and, I must admit, to a rather common discourse in our societies) , sex is not considered trivial. From a purely objective point of view, it certainly could (apart from the pregnancy and STD issues). But in reality it’s still considered something very special, due to our customs, our morals, our upbringing, etc…Even if it wasn’t a punishable offense, the wide majority of people wouldn’t consider making love on their house’s front lawn, in plain view. Actually, most wouldn’t even accept to be seen in the nude, though being nude is even more “trivial”, in theory.
If it were not for this reason, indeed, rape probably wouldn’t be consider so heinous a crime (and not even pedophilia, for that matter). It would probably rank at the same level as assault and battery.
As for pedophilia with an actually consenting children (and not tricked/led into consenting to acts he doesn’t actually like), and which wouldn’t result in any psychological damage to the child, the only reason to condemn it, indeed is that we have the deply ingrained feeling that sex is not trivial, and that children should be shielded from it (many parents wouldn’t want their children to watch porn, for instance, though there’s no obvious reason to assume that this would harm them). Though it’s more complicated in a child’s case, since it’s difficult to state what they actually could have consented to, and since they’re way more easy to manipulate than adults (well…at least than most adults).
So, to sum up, your question, IMO, has an easy answer : there’s a wide discrepancy between, the “general discourse”, our purely intelluectual thoughts and opinions, and our feelings and moral perceptions concerning sex. And these feelings and perceptions have IMO been hammered down in our brains by our culture and current generally accepted morals.
I think the OP didn’t ask why you (or more exactly us, as a society) favor laws against rape, but why these particular crime is perceived as so heinous and punished accordingly. You probably wouldn’t want to have your nose broken by a punch in the face, either, hence probably favor laws against battery, too. But this crime won’t make the headline, and the punishment will be widely more lenient.
I would also note that you din’t explain why exactly you wouldn’t want your children to have sex (assumed consensual in the OP). By not doing so, I suspect you’re falling in a trap : the assumption without objective motivations that “sex must be restricted” (see below concerning my suspisions about the Op’s possible agenda).
The OP’s question revolves, I believe, about the contradiction between the overall current discourse about sex being “trivial” and the particulary harsh view we have concerning sex-related crimes.
I somehow suspect (I apologize if I’m wrong) the OP of having an agenda along the line “see…the feelings that everybody share about sex-related crimes proves that there’s really something special about sex, that people stating that it’s trivial are actually in the wrong, and, somewhere, deeply, know it. And finally that there’s a “natural” (or possibly god-granted) sexual moral that we shouldn’t try to artificially reject”.
Wow, a lot of people seem to be missing the point of the OP (or bypassing it, for one reason or another); but I think HumptysHamhole and clairobscur got it.
The OP was addressing those who consider sex to be a mere physical act with no special significance; if you don’t accept that premise, or can’t at least assume it for the sake of argument, you’re not answering the OP’s question.
I believe the OP was either attempting to convince such people, via a sort of reductio ad adsurdium argument, that sex is not just a trivial, morally neutral, physical act, or else to learn how they personally reconcile two seemingly inconsistent positions. I, for one, do not believe sex is trivial or morally neutral; I believe that it is somehow special; and one reason I believe this is the OP’s argument: sex is not meaningless or morally neutral because then sex with children, or nonconsensual sex, would be meaningless or morally neutral, which it obviously is not.
But even if I did consider sex to be a mere physical, trivial act, it’d be a fact that plenty of people don’t agree with me. And if I force sex on someone who does see an emotional or spiritual significance to sex, their belief is enough to make my raping them a heinous act. Which is the best answer I can come up with to the OP’s question (which I think is a good one!).
The legal age of consent (18) is just an artificial construct that seems to me to be a practical safeguard against people not mature or wise enough to understand what they’re getting into. Morally, I see no problem with people younger than 18 having sex, as long as they’re not being taken advantage of and they understand what’s going on.
I would see more problem with a 30-year old taking advantage of another 30 year old than of a 30 year old and a 15 year old who truly care about each other having sex in a truly consensual fashion.
The law is a blunt hammer that I think is reasonable; as the age goes down, the percentage of people who truly CAN consent to sex goes down. You have to pick a minimum age at some point. However, if it was not an exploitative relationship, I wouldn’t report a 30 & 15 year old, as I would not find it immoral.
Just from a biological POV, sexual intercourse can be performed by anyone, with no training whatsoever.
If that doesn’t meet the definition of “trivial,” I don’t know what does.
(Personally, I don’t think that the sex act is trivial, but that non-triviality comes entirely from social pressures, and are therefore somewhat arbitrary as a result.)
I don’t think that there is such a thing as a non-violent rape. Regardless of the situation (coersion versus an out-right attack), it’s still going to be emotionally and physically traumatic. For example, if I am forced to have sex (excluding a consensual role-playing scenario), I will experience no pleasure. That means no lubrication. I think that most women will agree with me that sex without lubrication is EXTREMELY painful. Especially if someone is forcing their way into you without lubrication - it can cause ripping, tearing and bleeding of some very sensitive tissue, and it hurts, and can continue to hurt for days after, sometimes even causing permanent damage. Now, to come to your point about sex not being sacred, I think that it actually is sacred for most people. Therefore, you are performing an act that you are taught should only be performed on a consensual basis against your will. It’s an act that is consider extremely intimate by all socities (that I know of, anyway), so it will be emotionally traumatic whether you are coerced into sex or are raped. Either way, you are performing an intimate act without your consent.
As for pedophelia - think about it. It’s having sex with a child. Theoretically, because the child has not started to develop hormonally to any significant extent, that child should not be physically capable of enjoying sex. I mean, it’s extremely graphic and disgusting, but wouldn’t a child’s genetalia be way too small to comfortably accommodate, say, a grown man’s penis? I imagine that something like that would be extremely painful. Also, children are constantly developing emotionally. You may argue that all people are constantly developing emotionally, and that would be accurate; however, children are still working on developing a solid foundation for sound decision-making, while most (not all - some “adults” are very stunted as far as the ability to make sound decisions) have had the opportunity to develop that base and understand the mental and emotional implications of having sex. Those mental and emotional implications could include getting hurt when you find out someone just wants to have sex with you but desires no actual emotional connection, coping with the sometimes conflicting emotions some people experience after having sex (i.e., guilt, feeling used), and simply understanding that the person you are having sex with might not want the same things you do or care about you the same way you care about them. Things like that are really painful for adults even when they have developed coping mechanisms to deal with them - children don’t usually come equipped with such emotional defenses. Then there are all the physical things that could happen, such as STDs, which an adult would know about and understand, but a child would not.
Making a conscious choice to have sex with someone, anyone regardless of age, who is incapable of either feeling pleasure during sex or having the emotional and intellectual capacity to fully understand the physical and mental consequences of having sex is just wrong. It’s irresponsible, unethical, and immoral, no matter what god, if any, you worship.
Sex doesn’t have to be sacred for the imposition of sex to be more heinous than some other forms of assault.
It involves prolonged physical contact. For those of us who dislike rubbing shoulders with strangers on an elevator, extended touching of any sort is pretty traumatic. Throwing in the bodily fluids just adds to the horror. Most of us wouldn’t be too casual about someone holding us down and defecating in our mouths, for example.
Permanent physical consequences. Pregnancy, STDs, other damage.
Psychological damage. It would be bad if you deliberately made a kid afraid of antelope. Worse if you made the afraid of cows. Worse still if you made them fear leather. Worst of all if you made them fear the color brown. If an action can make a person afraid of something that is a normal facet of everyday life, that action is worse than an action with no such fear attached. In comparison, doing something that could reasonably lead to a fear of eating is even worse than something that reasonably leads to a fear of sex, since eating is even more a part of a “normal” life than sex is.
In my experience, there are two groups that make such links.
Homophobes do it to tar homosexuals with the same brush.
NAMBLA and their ilk do it in an attempt to gain “victimhood” status, which they realize is the most exalted and highest possible status to have in some political circles.
Good point, but I’m not sure it explains anything; it may just broaden the question. What’s to keep someone from dismissing this by saying you just have a “hangup” about touching the way many people have hangups about sex?
As I see it, sexual intercourse is touching taken to the extreme. And the very same touch can feel good or bad depending on how you feel about who’s doing the touching, and what kind of relationship you have with them. I’d respond to hand-holding or a hug with anywhere from bliss to disgust, depending on how I felt about the other person. If I reach out to feel a stranger’s boob, that’s bad; but there are situations where grabbing a boob would be appropriate and welcomed. If you kiss your kid, that’s sweet; if you try to slip them some tongue, that’s creepy. Context matters.
If you kiss your kid, that’s sweet; if you try to slip them some tongue, that’s creepy. Context matters.