Why is have sex with underage girls wrong? and snuff porn?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Why is have sex with underage girls wrong? and snuff porn?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 06:22 am
Why is have sex with underage girls wrong?snuff porn ? women being tortured?

I do not like snuff porn, torture porn, or old guys having sex with underage girls. In addition, I don ` t like "scat", "humiliation", "rape", or "bestiality" . I know men jack off to it, because there is a market for it. I imagine people jerk off to these stuff in the past when there were no laws to prevent them from actually making it happen. If men are psychologically disposed to torturing a woman to jack off, i imagine there is really not many laws in the past to stop this person from making this a reality This gets me thinking. In the past, it is common that older man have sex with underage girls. It is acceptable for guys to kill a woman due to a sexual fantasy, because the general conception of women is they are just a product to be sold, and own. It is common to have a sex slave, where slave are common, and sex slave is an instance. It is common to hit a woman when she does something wrong. All these things are now wrong, but at their time, these things are common, and probable wide spread. What is happening now is that these stuff are not acceptable, and if you do it, you probable go to jail for many many years. I suspect that all the dark corners of sexual deviants where onces allowed, and the fact that women were seen as objects made that possible. In the past, if men have fantasy to see a girl having sex with a dog, and if he owns a sex slave, then he could very well order her to have sex with a dog. I surely do not like it, and the mere thought of it makes me sick, but it seems to be true. It is true that:

1. All sexual deviant fantasy were legal, and practiced.


I think sexual fantasies reveals something about human nature. We say these acts are wrong, but it is common place in the past for much of human evolution. Even plato thinks that killing babes are effective measures to control population growth.
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 08:18 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Nobody said it's wrong/bad per say. It's just not that pleasant for some people. And they have the right to protect themselves/protect those who are hurt by these acts.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:41 am
@TuringEquivalent,
So your argument for why they aren't wrong is...the naturalistic fallacy?

It's not really clear what you're saying :perplexed:
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 12:18 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
And, religion was born!
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 12:36 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;150554 wrote:
And, religion was born!

Jack you are very wise on these sorts of matter, Would you please elaborate on what you are saying?:detective:
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 01:37 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Ahh........ you again,
As i am still living, i cannot be wise. I am an humble student.

okay, jokes apart..... sexual deviancy has been one cause of ethics and taboos coming into human societies. This led to religion. The organised religion that we see today had humble beginnings. One need to study tribal mores, morality and norms to understand the advent, evolution and propogation of religions. Its an attempt by wise people after seeing the effects of the bad, and the good, and infusing religion into culture. Sex by itslef is not wrong, it is human sexual tendencies and its influences which are deemed to be bad or seen as an harm.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 04:47 am
@platorepublic,
platorepublic;150527 wrote:
Nobody said it's wrong/bad per say. It's just not that pleasant for some people. And they have the right to protect themselves/protect those who are hurt by these acts.
Nobody..nobody said it was wrong? We only actually judge morality when someone complains they dont like it?:perplexed:strange very strange.
 
William
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:52 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Hello TE.Your use of the vernacular indicates that you are a victim of political correctness to think anyone could be predisposed to commit such acts as you state. I assure you those acts are not innate. These are acts of deprivation. Severe deprivation!!!!

And yes, deprived individuals are capable of many things to fulfill desires they shouldn't have. You have mentioned some of the most severe ones. All human beings innately have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. When they are deprived of anything, they will fill the gaps to make it complete again. The problem is they are filling those gaps with the wrong stuff.

In our politically correct environment there has been a horrific miscarriage of what freedom of speech was meant to mean. We DON'T "need to know" all that!!! When we say that, then what we know flaws that we do speak and becomes a part of that very speech. We know what is wrong, innately and when those depravities are exposed/exploited that speech becomes more flawed to the point that it becomes obscene. Political correctness says there is no such thing for who is to judge what anyone does or says.

A quagmire has been created because of this severe miscarriage. Yes, there are those who need to know of those depravities, but all...............NO! And god help those that are exposed to them. They by all means should not be allowed in the public domain and should be handled privately, fairly and judiciously. But to do that we must understand why such depravity exists; who took what was in those gaps to begin with? Once we understand that, then we can treat it, cure it, heal it, fix it and fill those gaps with that which was lost or taken away that should have been there all along. If you truly want to know what "thou shalt not steal means" it's what was in those gaps before it was stolen. Ah but we say we "bought" that. Ha! Now that is what is obscene! No man should be for sale!! Hard to imagine huh? Not only what as man is concerned; anything. Do we know nothing of what sharing is all about?

The only way we can fix that so flawed speech is to allow all to be free. Sadly, because that speech is so flawed among us all, it is difficult to understand what free is and what it represents in all contexts. Hell, we don't even know what innate is or what is natural. I promise you there is nothing natural in depravity in any context and should never be allowed in the public domain.

The problem is so many are deprived to a certain extent, it's difficult to know what obscene is. We know it when we see it but are afraid to speak it for it would be against the law and what political correctness dictates. See the problem has become monumental to the point that people are afraid to speak anything for fear of those reprisals that might ensue if they do. And we profess to say all have freedom of speech. We have surely created what seems to be an obscene paradox. And that my friend is what hell is.

TE, that is what this forum is all about as I share my "speech" with you for we can speak freely for the first time since our being. Yet we still have to deal with those so deprived in order to do that, so it will take a little time for those solutions to be met so we can all get out of this hell we have created. We can all help each other do that.

I am sure there will be those who will contradict what I have offered. If I am mistaken then please offer what can fill those gaps in what my speech offers. I do want it to be correct, and thanks.:a-ok:

William
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 07:12 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;150541 wrote:
So your argument for why they aren't wrong is...the naturalistic fallacy?

It's not really clear what you're saying :perplexed:


More reading on that.

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though a better name is appeal to nature.

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or better yet, this link.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Nature
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 07:30 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;150516 wrote:
Why is have sex with underage girls wrong?snuff porn ? women being tortured?

I do not like snuff porn, torture porn, or old guys having sex with underage girls. In addition, I don ` t like "scat", "humiliation", "rape", or "bestiality" . I know men jack off to it, because there is a market for it. I imagine people jerk off to these stuff in the past when there were no laws to prevent them from actually making it happen. If men are psychologically disposed to torturing a woman to jack off, i imagine there is really not many laws in the past to stop this person from making this a reality This gets me thinking. In the past, it is common that older man have sex with underage girls. It is acceptable for guys to kill a woman due to a sexual fantasy, because the general conception of women is they are just a product to be sold, and own. It is common to have a sex slave, where slave are common, and sex slave is an instance. It is common to hit a woman when she does something wrong. All these things are now wrong, but at their time, these things are common, and probable wide spread. What is happening now is that these stuff are not acceptable, and if you do it, you probable go to jail for many many years. I suspect that all the dark corners of sexual deviants where onces allowed, and the fact that women were seen as objects made that possible. In the past, if men have fantasy to see a girl having sex with a dog, and if he owns a sex slave, then he could very well order her to have sex with a dog. I surely do not like it, and the mere thought of it makes me sick, but it seems to be true. It is true that:

1. All sexual deviant fantasy were legal, and practiced.


I think sexual fantasies reveals something about human nature. We say these acts are wrong, but it is common place in the past for much of human evolution. Even plato thinks that killing babes are effective measures to control population growth.



There are a couple of things to say. When the first societies developed, they had rules, which is to say, prohibitions on some things. Obviously, prohibitions are generally only made when someone wants to do whatever it is that is prohibited (there is very little point in outlawing a behavior that no one ever wants to do and therefore never does). So there have always been laws against things that some people wanted to do, everywhere that there have been laws.

Second, what people want is not purely a matter of genetics or untampered with "human nature". The way someone is raised appears to have a good deal to do with what the person wants and feels later on in life. Thus, for example, if you wanted to raise a psychopath, you can often do this by neglecting a child, from birth, showing little or no affection for it, and abusing it. But if you raised its twin in a home with love and affection, a "good" home, if you will, it will likely not turn out to be a psychopath (of course, these are not absolutely guaranteed, as brain damage may occur and throw things off, but in general, how the child is raised will dramatically affect what it cares about and how it behaves). Or if you want to raise a child to be a sadomasochist, you can increase your chances of that by being a loving parent who spanks and beats the child (that is to say, that you both show love and you spank and beat the child). For more on these sorts of ideas, a study of psychology would be in order.

Additionally, "underage" is a concept that has given different ages in different societies. In many primitive cultures, one became more or less an adult at puberty (which, by the way, is still represented in the celebrations of Bar and Bat Mitzvah). Even today, "age of consent" varies from country to country. So when an ancient Greek, for example, had sex with a 16 year old, this was not regarded as a violation of rules regarding underage children, as that was not regarded as underage at the time. But that does not mean that they did not have prohibitions against having sex with someone under what they would have regarded as "of age".


Part of your post appears to be a request for the foundations of morality. If that is what you are looking for, it would be best to directly ask that and not muddy the waters with a discussion of sexual deviance.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 10:27 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Young girls does not have the same kind of selfruling abilities as adults, they have a harder time saying no, and can easily be manipulated and swayed by scrupules adults.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:43 pm
@William,
William;150803 wrote:
Hello TE.Your use of the vernacular indicates that you are a victim of political correctness to think anyone could be predisposed to commit such acts as you state. I assure you those acts are not innate. These are acts of deprivation. Severe deprivation!!!!

And yes, deprived individuals are capable of many things to fulfill desires they shouldn't have. You have mentioned some of the most severe ones. All human beings innately have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. When they are deprived of anything, they will fill the gaps to make it complete again. The problem is they are filling those gaps with the wrong stuff.

In our politically correct environment there has been a horrific miscarriage of what freedom of speech was meant to mean. We DON'T "need to know" all that!!! When we say that, then what we know flaws that we do speak and becomes a part of that very speech. We know what is wrong, innately and when those depravities are exposed/exploited that speech becomes more flawed to the point that it becomes obscene. Political correctness says there is no such thing for who is to judge what anyone does or says.

A quagmire has been created because of this severe miscarriage. Yes, there are those who need to know of those depravities, but all...............NO! And god help those that are exposed to them. They by all means should not be allowed in the public domain and should be handled privately, fairly and judiciously. But to do that we must understand why such depravity exists; who took what was in those gaps to begin with? Once we understand that, then we can treat it, cure it, heal it, fix it and fill those gaps with that which was lost or taken away that should have been there all along. If you truly want to know what "thou shalt not steal means" it's what was in those gaps before it was stolen. Ah but we say we "bought" that. Ha! Now that is what is obscene! No man should be for sale!! Hard to imagine huh? Not only what as man is concerned; anything. Do we know nothing of what sharing is all about?

The only way we can fix that so flawed speech is to allow all to be free. Sadly, because that speech is so flawed among us all, it is difficult to understand what free is and what it represents in all contexts. Hell, we don't even know what innate is or what is natural. I promise you there is nothing natural in depravity in any context and should never be allowed in the public domain.

The problem is so many are deprived to a certain extent, it's difficult to know what obscene is. We know it when we see it but are afraid to speak it for it would be against the law and what political correctness dictates. See the problem has become monumental to the point that people are afraid to speak anything for fear of those reprisals that might ensue if they do. And we profess to say all have freedom of speech. We have surely created what seems to be an obscene paradox. And that my friend is what hell is.

TE, that is what this forum is all about as I share my "speech" with you for we can speak freely for the first time since our being. Yet we still have to deal with those so deprived in order to do that, so it will take a little time for those solutions to be met so we can all get out of this hell we have created. We can all help each other do that.

I am sure there will be those who will contradict what I have offered. If I am mistaken then please offer what can fill those gaps in what my speech offers. I do want it to be correct, and thanks.:a-ok:

William



I am just describing what people seem to like. People have sexual deviants, and you say it is some sort of deprivation. That might be the case, but so what? I am sure that these deviant acts where deeply in the minds of men 1000, 2000 years ago, and they are just as common back then.
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:47 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;150882 wrote:
Young girls does not have the same kind of selfruling abilities as adults, they have a harder time saying no, and can easily be manipulated and swayed by scrupules adults.


Many, people over the age of consent lacks these abilities too, yet we do not disallow sex with them. So if that is the reason, then we reason inconsistently in banning sex with people under the age of consent.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:48 pm
@Emil,
Emil;150810 wrote:


What is your objection?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:56 pm
@Emil,
Emil;151081 wrote:
Many, people over the age of consent lacks these abilities too, yet we do not disallow sex with them. So if that is the reason, then we reason inconsistently in banning sex with people under the age of consent.
The age has to be set somewhere, we cant waste time setting the age for each individual, besides that would be very discriminating.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 04:38 pm
@HexHammer,
Law concerning behavior is a statitical game. Saying that some adults cannot make rational decisions about intimate relationships so it doesn't make sense that we should protect children either is a statistical cop-out. If one looks back at much of what mainstream culture considers human rights advancement stems from the protection of marginalized populations. If children had not been protected in the last 60+ years from things like sexual advantage being taken of them much of what we consider sexual equality would never have taken place. Even the cultural taboo that has grown around "statutory" intimacy is an environmental and mental protection for the culture ingeneral. So by the personal protection of individuals as well as a social protection for an ideal we have gained quite a bit of what is considered now "Progress".
 
ValueRanger
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:06 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
General rules - more laws, less guidelines - give the ignorant information to work upon as a foundation for potential action.

Tools, like rules, are just as pliable in application to the ignorant explorer. Higher levels of consciousness empower the practitioner with a more evolved inner compass, and better predicts consequence to actionable sequence. Seeking experienced help is also a proven tool that better informs, and thereby forms, the more negotiable moral agent.

A good counselor can help individuals better evaluate where they've been, to where they are now, and where they want to be, in sexual, or other value hierarchies. It should be fairly obvious that revealing root cause drives helps form more sustainable civilizations.
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:46 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;151083 wrote:
What is your objection?


There is none. You may believe that every response to your posts contains an objection or disagreement, but that is not the case.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 07:22 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;151088 wrote:
The age has to be set somewhere, we cant waste time setting the age for each individual, besides that would be very discriminating.



Emil does seem to have a good point of view and you yourself seem to be a business person. When you hire do you screen for aptitude or any other mental abilities? Would this be discriminating if you did? Does this logic only apply to business?:detective:
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 08:45 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;151160 wrote:
Emil does seem to have a good point of view and you yourself seem to be a business person. When you hire do you screen for aptitude or any other mental abilities? Would this be discriminating if you did? Does this logic only apply to business?:detective:
Then thing is, in buisness we don't hire people en mass, there are only so many jobs to give, that's why it's nessesary to discriminate and be selective.

With law, you have to adhere the law of equallity, the morals line, the ethics ..etc. Buisnesses are not bound nor shall adhere such rules and guidelines, I don't know why you make such poor comparison.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Why is have sex with underage girls wrong? and snuff porn?
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/29/2014 at 04:52:06