And if not why not?

Most people agree that actions which harm others are wrong, but many actions are illegal which do not harm anyone and are known as victimless crimes. How can society justify criminalizing having sex with kids if it doesn't hurt anyone?

Many assume that a child will be 'traumatized' by having sex with an adult, however this is not true. Firstly ages of consent vary across the world (from 13 in Spain to 18 in California) - proof that there is no consensus on what the minimally acceptable age at which a person can engage in sex is. Secondly much of the 'trauma' (guilt, shame, victimization) felt by 'victims' is in fact caused by society, such as in the case of Africa's 'Witch Children', many of whom genuinely believe they are 'witches' - not because they are but because they have been told they are.

Suppose a child has consensual safe-sex with an adult in a society where this is permitted (and therefore not immoral/taboo etc). In what way would the child be harmed?

It doesn't hurt them physically (sometimes) but it can be seriously emotionally scarring for a child. It also opens doors which most parents would rather remain closed (sexual desires) until the children have grown up.

Firstly, what age parameters?
How young is acceptable?

Size does matter, even some adult females can be damaged/hurt by well to over developed males.
This can happen within otherwise compatible groups and would be almost certain between, say, pygmie children and Zulu men, the whom are definitely not sexually compatible.
So to make it legal for sex between consenting (???) children and adults size would need to be considered.

A perusal of the medical evidence in some child molestation cases would prove this point. (as near to blood red as possible).

The age of consent would need looking at also, perhaps being replaced by 'ability to give informed consent', this would need some form of formal education in the subject and an examination and the issue of a certificate of competency in "Informed Consent".

To protect children and adults there would need to be some regulation that unless a consent certificate was produced then sexual activity would not be allowed, furthermore it might be considered necessary that such certificates be carred at all times; these could be used in lieu of 'Proof of Age Cards' in pubs and clubs as DOB would need to be on them.

Hope this is helpful.

Here's a way. It's customary in some parts of Africa for girls to be married as soon as they reach puberty, but the resulting births often cause horrific damage to their immature bodies and sometimes result in death, it's called fistula.
http://www.globalhealth.org/reports/pri ... hp3?id=117
Here's another way. Males in this country, both black and white have been know to buy sex from indigenous children for the price of a can of coke. Yes the children consent but even if "safe sex" is performed it's exploitation in my book.
Because of their immaturity children don't percieve the place of sex in adult society, so they're always going to be exploited like early explorers who bought the homelands of primative peoples for the price of a few beads.

banjo

The problem with your logic is you have assumed a fact that is not true.

You classify having sex with kids a victimless crime. Because you assert that no one is harmed by the act.

Since you don't offer proof that no one is harmed for a given age of child, you can't classify the act as a victimless crime.

Personally, I think the penalty for rock spiders should be tougher.

I think that a quick trip on a short rope would be in order, if the rope is to long the head is likely to be snapped off.

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

banjo,

Again you offer facts that are not in evidence. Where is your proof that it is a victimless crime?

Just because most people enjoy "doing sex", as you so eloquently put it, doesn't mean that it's harmless. Most people enjoy doing heroin too.

And children are not really well positioned to judge for themselves whether "doing sex" will harm them.

I would narrowly agree, most children may enjoy sexual activity, with other children hence the popularity of playing 'Mothers and Fathers', sometimes graphically and such activity is indeed victim less.

But what do you think about the size factor, and how can the uninformed give informed consent?

Clancy is controversial, but she does not (I believe) argue that child sexual abuse is not traumatic, or that any trauma is the result only of social attitudes. Her thesis is that the trauma largely occurs not not at the time of the abuse but in adolescence/adulthood, when the victim attempt to process what has happened to them, in the light of their emerging sexuality.

She argues that the trauma may be intensified by "awfulisation" of the experience by the child's family and community, but not that it attributable solely to that cause. Furthermore, in arguing that child sexual abuse is not experienced as traumatic at the time, she does not assert that it is not harmful at the time or later.

Finally, her research is into cases of people who are abused in prepubescence. The great bulk of underage sex prosecutions involve sex with adolescents, not underage children. Clancy's research, and her conclusions, are not directly in point. I don't know whether she would go along with her research being used to support a claim that age-of-consent laws should be repealed, but I suspect not.

NO

It is not, ever.

A child, by definition, is an immature human being.

Having sex with someone who is immature is both illegal and deviant.

It is also practically impossibly to have intercourse with an immature person without causing some form of injury.

Yes, some countries, mainly "Third World" or "developing", have a low age of consent but that is irrelevant unless you live in that country.
Society sets the standard, you accept the standards set in the society in which you live, or you pay a penalty or leave that society.
You cannot decide societies rules do not apply to you if you do not like them.

I would definitely say NO to this!

A kid has their right and any sexual actions towards them will be considered abusive. Of course, sex is not for kids it is an actions that has to be done between two matured individual.

No one said it had to be penetrative sex. Oral sex would not harm a child physically.


So all the laws persecuting black people, homosexuals and women shouldn't have been changed? When laws are unjust we can decide if the rules apply to us, we can't always "leave that society".

I think you're all forgetting that a loving relationship between child and adult can be positive for both individuals. For example a child can learn from an older partner who has more life experience. The adult can offer financial/emotional support to the child.

No, it's wrong.

AlexGurl hit the nail on the head.

By definition a child is immature and therefore not ready for this step, to take this step with someone who is immature, mentally or physically, is deviant.

Adult sexual exploitation of minors is purely a matter of self-gratification with little or no care as to how this activity might impact upon the child's emotional and social development and wellbeing.

Everything in its time.

There's a cultural, emotional, and physical sequence that accompanies a child's development into adulthood, and when this is interrupted by the intrusion of atypical behaviour from an adult - behavioral dysfunction and trauma is liable to ensue, with feelings of worthlessness and 'guilt'.

One can 'coach' children into believing that sexual activity with a 'friendly' adult is okay - but the adult knows that he is swindling the child out of her virginity and the inhibitions which should only be set free by a caring boyfriend when she's old enough to understand the spiritual value of the sexual experience.

The universe is governed by Laws,we know this from how we have developed scientifically over time .Human societal developement is related to how we treat each other through generations,and these scientific developments only a rise when enough people behave well in the sexual arena,[more than any other],to create enough positive energy to 'launch the higher energies.

When a society seriously misbehaves,misuses sexual relations,it is only a ma tter of time, before it Falls.The same is true for the individual. Any individual who is in thrall to his Lower sensate parts, is heading downward in the evolutionary path.
The perversion of the sexual act, long term, is always by those who have a a very limited ability to discern the larger picture of existence,and so he /she is doomed to moral as well as physical death.

Would you have sex while your child was in the same bed? Many admits to have sex sessions while their kids sleeps. Do we know that it is verging on child abuse? So why do we ask ourselves that this is not hurting them emotionally, spiritually an emotionally? Civilization is evolving so why do we commit to those old beliefs or laws used by other uncivilized people. We know what is right or wrong.

I really disagree for having sex with kids. It is immorality in the eyes of God.

Within the context of our Western civilisation, having sex with kids lowers their sense of self-worth. They feel ashamed, demeaned, cheated, degraded, and used.

Ask most female prostitutes and drug addicts and they'll tell you they were sexually abused as a child. It's a very familiar refrain.

Most young girls of school age who are known to be 'loose' are in fact sad little girls with a poor self-image who want to delude themselves that the interest in them is genuine and sincere for how they really are in themselves.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Their popularity is solely due to the sexual gratification they provide so easily for the boys.

They are 'loved' for their bodies only. Their bodies are a utility for the pleasure of the boys who know them.