Given functional birth control and non-fucked family structure, incest is fine and natural and probably a good experience to have.
Birth-control isn’t natural, so how can incest using it be?
I’d expect that it would generally be awkward, but it’s fine beyond that.
Pedophilia is a legitimate sexual orientation, even if it expressing it IRL is bad.
I agree with the first half whole-heartedly. I’m not convinced that expressing it in real life is bad.
Most of the impact of rape is a made-up self fulfilling prophesy.
I never thought of that, but it doesn’t seem that unlikely. The obvious way to check would be to find out how rape victims deal with it in cultures with different views on how they would deal with it.
Birth-control isn’t natural, so how can incest using it be?
Maybe natural isn’t the right word. I mean it’s not some immoral abomination, it’s probably the same moral status as masturbation.
I’d expect that it would generally be awkward, but it’s fine beyond that.
I can imagine an alternative moral history where it is normal, and not awkward at all. It doesn’t seem like a moral disaster, so I can only conclude that it must be OK.
I’m not convinced that expressing it in real life is bad.
I’m not entirely either, but I forgot to dispute the whole “consent” thing, which would have to go away to make it ok IRL.
I never thought of that, but it doesn’t seem that unlikely. The obvious way to check would be to find out how rape victims deal with it in cultures with different views on how they would deal with it
My reasoning here is that when people get brutally beaten or otherwise humiliated where there’s social pressure to “man up and get over it”, they don’t turn into a bawwfest basket case the way some rape victims do, where there is social pressure to be a bawwfest basket case. I have not personally been raped, and have seen no studies, so there isn’t much evidence, but this seems most plausible.
EDIT: Also, the fact that it’s taboo to say this is evidence that it’s true.
I have not personally been raped, and have seen no studies, so there isn’t much evidence, but this seems most plausible.
Have you personally met many people who were raped? Come to that, have you met many people who were brutally beaten?
I haven’t met many, but I’ve known emotionally traumatized people in both categories, and I’ve known people in both categories who seemed to shrug it off.
Incidentally, if I’ve mischaracterized what you meant by “bawwfest” by reframing it as emotional trauma, let me know. I don’t really know what you mean by the term, over and above the intention to be dismissive of its referent.
Maybe natural isn’t the right word. I mean it’s not some immoral abomination
I’d say that natural things are vastly more likely to be immoral abominations on the basis that artificial things are created by people who have a moral compass and try to avoid immoral abominations, whereas natural things are created by Azathoth with the single goal of genetic fitness no matter how unspeakably cruel it is.
I’m not entirely either, but I forgot to dispute the whole “consent” thing
I find it odd that consent wouldn’t be assumed. You never hear people say that extramarital sex is bad on the assumption that they’re talking about rape.
I’d say that natural things are vastly more likely to be immoral abominations on the basis that artificial things are created by people who have a moral compass and try to avoid immoral abominations, whereas natural things are created by Azathoth with the single goal of genetic fitness no matter how unspeakably cruel it is.
Yes that’s why natural isn’t the right word. What I meant by natural was “morally natural”, but it was the wrong word to use.
I find it odd that consent wouldn’t be assumed. You never hear people say that extramarital sex is bad on the assumption that they’re talking about rape.
I was assuming consent in the sense that all parties are OK with it, but most people think sexual consent is impossible for children, so in that sense, consent can’t be assumed.
I really should change it, tho. That version of consent is too full of holes and violations.
I have not personally been raped, and have seen no studies, so there isn’t much evidence, but this seems most plausible.
EDIT: Also, the fact that it’s taboo to say this is evidence that it’s true.
Many things sound plausible to us when we construct narratives, but they are not necessarily true. And the fact of something being ‘taboo’ to say is weak evidence at best for its truth value. You seem to be giving a whole lot of credence to your alternate theory without doing much investigation or looking up studies.
The only way I can think of for it to be bad is for it to cause problems after the child has matured. I find this very unlikely. An experience can’t become traumatic after-the-fact. At worst they’d feel a little squicky thinking about it later on.
I’m not entirely certain, but I’ve never had a very good reason to try and find out. Still, I would like it if someone could send a link to something where they actually asked people who had sex as kids how it affects them now.
Also, I would expect that, if anything, raping a kid wouldn’t be as bad as raping an adult. If they’re not sexually mature, I’d expect them to not be built to dislike it as much. Again, I would like to see something where they ask victims and find out if this is the case.
Edit: Nvm, there’s a reason we generally think these threads are a bad idea.
Short answer: if a child thinks they’re consenting, they’re likely enough to be wrong (with great enough consequences) that the expected value is negative. Much more importantly: if an adult thinks a child is consenting, the adult is likely to be wrong (they’ll have a hard time between telling the difference between actual consent and consent that is feigned out of fear).
Is consent hypothetically possible? Yes. But you’re running on corrupted hardware and the expected value will usually be negative.
Do you mean changing their mind later? In that case, like I said, I find it hard to believe that they can be traumatized after-the-fact. It’s not impossible, but I find it very unlikely.
(they’ll have a hard time between telling the difference between actual consent and consent that is feigned out of fear).
If the other party can scare them into doing that, they can just scare them into saying they haven’t had sex in the first place.
At some point, it will become useful to stop using the word “consent” in this discussion, as I don’t think the word has the same referent every time it gets used. In particular, I don’t think there’s general agreement on how much knowledge is implied when we say a system consents to an action, and the different assumptions about that lead to different conclusions.
It isn’t equivalent. Grooming isn’t simply being nice and complimenting and trying to get close. It’s also about isolating the target and eliminating their ability to perceive their escape options.
Then can (and are way too likely) to fail at being informed when consenting.
If they’re not informed, that would be rape by deception. I would say that that should be illegal at any age, although I would imagine it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as being forced.
What exactly do they need to be informed about? They can get diseases from it, I guess. I’m pretty sure putting someone in danger like that without warning them would be illegal without anything specific about pedophilia.
Also you’re probably talking about hebephilia.
That too. There should be a term for pedophelia and hebephilia. Especially considering that pedophelia is commonly used to mean those two and ephebophilia.
Birth-control isn’t natural, so how can incest using it be?
I’d expect that it would generally be awkward, but it’s fine beyond that.
I agree with the first half whole-heartedly. I’m not convinced that expressing it in real life is bad.
I never thought of that, but it doesn’t seem that unlikely. The obvious way to check would be to find out how rape victims deal with it in cultures with different views on how they would deal with it.
Maybe natural isn’t the right word. I mean it’s not some immoral abomination, it’s probably the same moral status as masturbation.
I can imagine an alternative moral history where it is normal, and not awkward at all. It doesn’t seem like a moral disaster, so I can only conclude that it must be OK.
I’m not entirely either, but I forgot to dispute the whole “consent” thing, which would have to go away to make it ok IRL.
My reasoning here is that when people get brutally beaten or otherwise humiliated where there’s social pressure to “man up and get over it”, they don’t turn into a bawwfest basket case the way some rape victims do, where there is social pressure to be a bawwfest basket case. I have not personally been raped, and have seen no studies, so there isn’t much evidence, but this seems most plausible.
EDIT: Also, the fact that it’s taboo to say this is evidence that it’s true.
Have you personally met many people who were raped?
Come to that, have you met many people who were brutally beaten?
I haven’t met many, but I’ve known emotionally traumatized people in both categories, and I’ve known people in both categories who seemed to shrug it off.
Incidentally, if I’ve mischaracterized what you meant by “bawwfest” by reframing it as emotional trauma, let me know. I don’t really know what you mean by the term, over and above the intention to be dismissive of its referent.
I’d say that natural things are vastly more likely to be immoral abominations on the basis that artificial things are created by people who have a moral compass and try to avoid immoral abominations, whereas natural things are created by Azathoth with the single goal of genetic fitness no matter how unspeakably cruel it is.
I find it odd that consent wouldn’t be assumed. You never hear people say that extramarital sex is bad on the assumption that they’re talking about rape.
Yes that’s why natural isn’t the right word. What I meant by natural was “morally natural”, but it was the wrong word to use.
I was assuming consent in the sense that all parties are OK with it, but most people think sexual consent is impossible for children, so in that sense, consent can’t be assumed.
I really should change it, tho. That version of consent is too full of holes and violations.
Many things sound plausible to us when we construct narratives, but they are not necessarily true. And the fact of something being ‘taboo’ to say is weak evidence at best for its truth value. You seem to be giving a whole lot of credence to your alternate theory without doing much investigation or looking up studies.
Why?
The only way I can think of for it to be bad is for it to cause problems after the child has matured. I find this very unlikely. An experience can’t become traumatic after-the-fact. At worst they’d feel a little squicky thinking about it later on.
I’m not entirely certain, but I’ve never had a very good reason to try and find out. Still, I would like it if someone could send a link to something where they actually asked people who had sex as kids how it affects them now.
Also, I would expect that, if anything, raping a kid wouldn’t be as bad as raping an adult. If they’re not sexually mature, I’d expect them to not be built to dislike it as much. Again, I would like to see something where they ask victims and find out if this is the case.
You underestimate the effects of an entire cultural narrative repeatedly telling them that it’s something to be traumatized by.
So the suffering of an immature person is not a problem?
What if it was a traumatic experience to begin with?
Children can get PTSD.
(I don’t think I will be able to maintain an intelligent discussion on this topic, so I am unlikely to reply again.)
I meant consensual sex. Do I really need to specify?
Edit: Nvm, there’s a reason we generally think these threads are a bad idea.
Short answer: if a child thinks they’re consenting, they’re likely enough to be wrong (with great enough consequences) that the expected value is negative. Much more importantly: if an adult thinks a child is consenting, the adult is likely to be wrong (they’ll have a hard time between telling the difference between actual consent and consent that is feigned out of fear).
Is consent hypothetically possible? Yes. But you’re running on corrupted hardware and the expected value will usually be negative.
How can they be wrong about consenting?
Do you mean changing their mind later? In that case, like I said, I find it hard to believe that they can be traumatized after-the-fact. It’s not impossible, but I find it very unlikely.
If the other party can scare them into doing that, they can just scare them into saying they haven’t had sex in the first place.
Manipulation. Children are prone to manipulation by figures they trust. So they have belief-in-consent, not actual consent.
From the abstract of this paper:
At some point, it will become useful to stop using the word “consent” in this discussion, as I don’t think the word has the same referent every time it gets used. In particular, I don’t think there’s general agreement on how much knowledge is implied when we say a system consents to an action, and the different assumptions about that lead to different conclusions.
It isn’t equivalent. Grooming isn’t simply being nice and complimenting and trying to get close. It’s also about isolating the target and eliminating their ability to perceive their escape options.
That’s not okay, to put it mildly.
.
Variants of “I didn’t really say ‘no’, so I guess I kinda consented”.
-
If they’re not informed, that would be rape by deception. I would say that that should be illegal at any age, although I would imagine it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as being forced.
What exactly do they need to be informed about? They can get diseases from it, I guess. I’m pretty sure putting someone in danger like that without warning them would be illegal without anything specific about pedophilia.
That too. There should be a term for pedophelia and hebephilia. Especially considering that pedophelia is commonly used to mean those two and ephebophilia.
-
Inform them of what? How bad can the consequences of them not being informed of it possibly be?