= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dbaupp comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (857)
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.
Some evidence suggests that this isn't true.
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:
If sexual consent achieved by manipulation is equivalent to rape, does that imply that pick-up artists are rapists?
Spending time building up a relationship of trust and liking with a person that you want to have sex with is called "dating" and considered normal when it is in the context of two adults. The same activity is called "grooming" and considered horrendous manipulation when it is in the context of an adult and a child. Just because trust has been built up on purpose does not make consent founded on that trust false.
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.
In the cases where that happens, you are right, it is not okay. Is that universal, though? Like I mentioned in my other reply, I looked at wikipedia's entry about grooming before making my comment, and it did not mention isolating the child.
The entry could just be deficient, of course.
Did you actually read the abstract dbaupp just linked to?
I'd call that a pretty healthy falsification of "trust."
I did, and if you will note, it does not define such behaviors to be a part of grooming, but rather only says that many (not all) pedophiles have engaged in them. Such behaviors are obviously wrong and I am not defending them. I was specifically talking about the cases where no physical coercion is used, since those are the cases that the whole discussion was about. Cases where children were coerced are wrong and condemnable, but also irrelevant, since the discussion is about sex that the children consented to.
Also, because the abstract was somewhat unclear on whether it considered such behaviors a necessary part of grooming or not, I looked at wikipedia before writing my comment. Wikipedia's definition says that grooming refers to "actions deliberately undertaken with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, in order to lower the child's inhibitions" and generally describes actions which would be considered positive if not for their intent. Giving gifts, for example. "Hugging and kissing or other physical contact, even when the child does not want it, can happen", was the only thing even hinting of coercion that was mentioned.
Wikipedia can obviously be wrong and is not an authoritative source, but since neither the article nor the linked abstract implied that coercion or violence would be a necessary part of grooming, I felt justified in posting my comment.
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.
Variants of "I didn't really say 'no', so I guess I kinda consented".
Then can (and are way too likely) to fail at being informed when consenting.
Also you're probably talking about hebephilia.
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.
To clarify, I mean that it might be nearly impossible to properly inform humans below some age (maybe even relatively high age).
Inform them of what? How bad can the consequences of them not being informed of it possibly be?