/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>3176

I would of most likely gone for it. It was more ethical. The two girls I grew up around my age we did stuff, we trusted each other not to tell.

>CTRL + F "hebephilia"

>CTRL + F "ephebophilia"

>0 results

Fucking hell learn some shit about the subject, honestly. It's a different issue depending on whether the person is pre-pubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent. The girl in the OP pic is 11 but clearly she's mature for her age. Being attracted to her would be one of the above two, but definitely not pedophilia.

Fucking someone who's still pre-pubescent is pretty black and white a bad thing because of consent issues and because they're not physically capable yet. You start getting into gray areas once they start being physically ready for sex, because it's no longer damaging to their health. The worst effects (that we know of) coming from people that age having sex are the potential for exploitation of naivety and the inevitable social fallout. It's much more a taboo than a reasonable fear. Humans have been having sex as soon as they could do it for millions of years. The current taboos around sex were mostly introduced by religious teaching. The pagans were very open about sex before the Christians converted them. The arguments against under-[age of consent]s having sex mostly boil down to vague threats of harm akin to the arguments against gays being allowed to do their own thing and scare mongering about someone hurting your kids. I think this is part of a deeper problem where we treat people like children for longer than is natural. Adulthood used to be seen as beginning exactly when someone hits sexual maturity. Now we talk of reaching maturity at 16-18 but we really reach full psychological maturity at about 25. Should the age of consent be raised to 25?

A Researched Post in Two Parts:

Part 1.

Actually, the majority of the evidence show that pedophilic relationships (in and of themselves) are not nearly as harmful as is commonly believed.

Now, different circumstances, such as relation of the offender, nature of the relationship (whether it's a relationship, or a person repeatedly raping the victim,) and societal reaction if the deed is discovered CAN significantly effect the minors, psychologically and socially.

In regard to age of consent, the things needed seem to be

1. Understanding of the acts being discussed.

2. Understanding of the possible consequences that could stem from the discussed act.

and 3. Desire to follow through with the discussed act without force or even pressure, in a lucid state of mind.

That being said, I understood sex from around age 11, and from discussion this seems to be a fairly average age.

However, if the person is an adult or older peer, simply the admiration the minor may feel may be enough to provide internal pressure, should the older party ask for sex. A younger party may not want to let the older down...

This is, of course, conjecture.

At its face, if a minor understands sex and sees themselves on an even level as their partner, there is no reason (in the above definition of consent) why consent should be an impossible thing.

Now, about my above statements about pedophilic relationships not being as harmful, I base this on actual reports.

https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm

This report, among other things, investigates reports of sexual offenses against minors in countries during brief periods when this manner of pornography was legal, as well as the times just before and after.

It points towards an inverse relationship, the more porn on a subject, the less sex-crimes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602527/22/1

This article shows a similar relationship between pornography and sex crimes, in Japan.

More sources that support this are:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178909000445

http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/conf/sic/papers_2007/kendall.pdf

Given that information, making possession (but not necessarily production) charges illegal may actually reduce the number of CSA incidents.

Let us, then, move on to content of this pornography.

In regard to this type of pornography, roughly 1/3 involves adult intercourse with minors, nearly half is erotic nudity or genital display, and the rest is sexual acts involving children.

https://www.bookdepository.com/Child-Pornography-Ian-ODonnell/9781843923565

These statistics are not terribly important now, but may be useful later.

(note, given a broader definition of pornography, these numbers are much different, including <1% involving adults.)

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjhm20/56/2

Now for this pornography's effect on the children involved.

Above-mentioned articles by Ian O'Donnell and by H. Mirkin show less harm than previously though.

But I'll let some of the children speak for themselves.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm

These boys were part of a pornographic ring, had positive feelings about their abuser, and negative feelings about the police who ended the operation. They chose to remain in contact with the abuser even as adults.

They claim that the worst aspect of the photography as children was the betrayal of trust when the photographer (who was not essentially their abuser) sold the photos internationally.

My next source is not as clear:

The starter of this thread claims to be a boy pedophiles know as "spongebob" in a quite well-noted case.

He expresses many ill feelings about himself, and his offender, but it should be noted that he hates his offender for the same reason that the boys above hated their photographer. A complete betrayal of trust by the pornographer.

It may be noted that reports show the boy exhibiting positive changes in behavior during the times when the relationship was active. I do not know if this is actually the boy, but he does not seem as biased as one would expect an undercover pedophile or "antipedo" would be.

https://www.reddit.com/r/casualiama/comments/2tj10p/i_was_the_kid_behind_the_spongebob_child_porn_case/

This is quite in line with other reports, such as the infamous Rind, et al. report which showed a significantly lower relationship between cases of CSA and self-reported harm.

http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/sc563/mcgu/sc56310.pdf

It should also be noted that Kinsey's books on Human Sexuality also show sexuality and sexual knowledge as present well before the age of 18.

All of this, plus the information that much of the material produced today is made, in fact, by minors, paints a radically different picture.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/children-producing-their-own-web-porn-26454111.html

>>No.3316

Part 2

There is one more piece of information I would like to produce, but cannot find at the moment, which is an article from a journal of sex research showing the relationship between CSA and depression in adult women.

This report showed almost no correlation between CSA and psychological problems in adult women as long as the incident did not involve coercion or actual use of force.

And finally, I would like to note that this is a subject that is not as well-researched as is should be. It is something that is important in today's culture, and it's something academics are usually punished for talking about, unless their evidence matches public opinion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hawaii-man-opinions-on-sex-keep-him-from-becoming-teacher/

Simply for stating that you are not against is, seems to be enough to show that you are for it, which cannot be allowed.

Given the above information, I feel that the possession of this pornography should not be illegal.

I feel that age of consent laws, as they stand in my country, are not based in reason and are, therefore, in need of revision.

Unfortunately, we cannot judge these relationships on a case-by-case basis, with full knowledge of the events. Unfortunate, as well, that the social stigma seems to be worse than the incidents, in general, deserve.

For these reasons, I do feel that pedophilic relationships should remain illegal for the protection of the child.

I classify this last one as an act of pragmatism, simply because of how little we know at this moment.

Even if the act may not be harmful, the societal reaction probably is.

Finally, production of child pornography laws, should probably be rewritten to match the evidence, possibly giving more lenience to minors who are self-producers.

I do not feel we need under-aged sex-offenders.

Note: None of the links contain pornography of any kind.

All are research articles, news reports, places to access the material (academic catalogs) and one Reddit thread containing no pictures.

>>3316

>>3317

interesting

>>2934

r/K theory is obsolete. Smarter people tend to wait until they're older before they try to have kids (when they're more able). Also, they tend to be able to control themselves better.

>>3317

>>3316

This definitely merits further research.

Only thoughts I ever had on the subject comes from when I was going through puberty. I used to search the Internet for younger girls porn because that was my age and older women seemed wrong, not teen porn.i also wasn't very smart and never tried to hide behind proxies or anything while doing this so I got very lucky that I was never caught because if I was I would be guilty of a crime. A crime that would both be telling me that I'm not old enough to consent to sex but is also inherently a sex crime. This makes no sense and should never be enforced and really needs to be changed

It's obviously not a very black and white issue when it comes to attraction. Being attraction to OP's pic isn't wrong. She is incredibly mature and is wearing revealing clothing. If she looks like a toddler and you were sexually attracted to that then it would be worrying. Eitherway knowingly and willingly having sex with someone so young is definitely wrong. They are not mentally and possibly physically able to go through with such an act in good judgement.

>>3316

Though I mostly share your conclusions, I did not reach them through much scientific research, though anecdotes and forums helped. Rather, being more of a social liberal and trying to have an open mind while questioning the foundation of sexuality did it. It was a slow thought process, and I don't think I could have made the cognitive jump if I were still prejudiced against gays, trannies, "sexual deviants", the sexually promiscuous, and fornificators. It's really not society's business to harshly judge and punish people for what they consent to do in a bed room, or to dictate in absolutes which bonds are off limits. People should become accustomed to finding fair exceptions for every rule.

For example, I know of a forum post where an older woman has admitted to fucking her younger brother. They both post and say they're in love with each other, and the brother has a heart condition that will give him an early death, and they both have a lot of emotional issues from childhood abuse - the brother even tried to kill himself once. If these two can find stability in each other and don't have retarded kids, it shouldn't matter that the brother is technically still a senior at High School and it's incest.

>>2139

children shouldn't have sex, especially not with older people

kids rarely initiate sex of their own volition with others, the ones that do most often were sexually abused or are tiny perves like anon >>3031

during puberty, yeah teenagers try to have sex, sexual discover however doesnt involve older losers who couldnt be bothered to learn how to interact with people their own age

and obviously 3d is bad

2d is fine

>>2139

Why do you have these on your computer?

>>3031

Tell them to stop you fucking adult

Morals seem relative, bottom line are pictures abuse, and if they are, is that inherently so? This is not a complicated issue.

>>4175

Nobody said anything about sex, but rather the act of photography for the purpose of erotic stimulation. You are opening up another can of worms, not to mention the correlation of these pictures to acts of abuse, and the argument of whether freedom should be withheld when negative consequences are predicted.

Let's keep this focused on those directly effected. Are the people in the photo abused, and I say no. Though I say that with presupposition that we are talking about safe places, that are not abusive, the children were not coerced into doing something they were not asked to do officially, and are in the care of responsible staff.

There is the question of regret for being the subject if photography later on though, but that would only be the case in a society that rejects the person who feels shamed. Or the shift in a persons personal standards later on, though to say that this dilemma is unique to children is seems uncommon, so laws concerning this assuming only children are effected, and to a greater extent appear ignorant.

I do digress a little on the the stance of the models future shame, because we do not live in perfect society. They might feel shamed, and it would be cruel to put them into a position where they will feel like garbage. There would just be to great a chance at this time for it, and not enough abstraction from the those consequences to the act of the production company for a government to allow it.

So bottom line, it should be fine for this kind of thing to exist, as in modeling clothed and such, ( anything more then that is an argument for another time ) but not as society is now, it does not allow for to not be abusive because the position of a child model is shamed.

>>2169

These retard moral subjectivists are always hypocrites. It reminds me of a college philosophy source where people tried to argue for moral subjectivism and my prof goes "if someone raped your mother would you be mad?"

>>4212

>feels are the basis of morality

Jesus christ, emotivists get out! You're even worse than relativists.

>>4215

lel that shut him up for once

>>4221

>>4215

>morality is purely subjective and cannot be grounded in anything other than feels

Son, have you read Kant? You can through pure reason deduce an ethics. Is it a complete ethics? No, but neither is emotivism.

>Kant: The only unconditionally good thing is a good will

>A good will is good not because of what it wills(empirical, contingent, particular), but how it wills (form, universalizability)

>Maxim: subjective principles of action. We must check whether a maxim is universalizable, i.e. is it a maxim which everyone else could act on.

>Maxim: I will break promises when it is convenient Test: imagine a world in which everyone broke promises as convenient If I will to break promises when convenient, I can only do so by assuming that the institution of promising remains, i.e. in order to act on the maxim I must both will that I break promises when convenient and that everyone else keep their promises CONTRADICTION: P and ~P This is what makes a maxim wrong, i.e. immorality is to engage in contradiction. I will to make myself the exception to the rule (particularity over universality), i.e. egoism, self-interestedness, making ourselves different from everyone else, parasitism on the good will of others

>Reason all by itself reveals that we are logically bound to one another through the test of the maxim

>>4221

I have other things to do than read this board every day. I'm glad you reveled for a moment in glee believing this had stumped me and I had run away in shame.

>>4229

>is ought gap

Kant's position is not under attack from that. Kant basically says reason is good, and reason is not contradiction. You're right, he could not substantiate his notion of the good. He had to dogmatically assert it, and as all philosophies of dogmatic kinds they are prey to Nietszche's psychologism.

Point is that emotivism is not the only way to formulate ethics. Emotivism is just another relativistic framework not worth calling ethics.

>>4230

>"If this is good then this is what we ought to follow"

All ethical theories that make the claim about what is good and that we must follow what is good suffer from is-ought gap.

If Kant cannot substantiate the notion of good necessarily then how is it more than just an opinion? If he has to assert it dogmatically, does that not prove the point of the non-cognitivist?

>Emotivism is just another relativistic framework not worth calling ethics.

Again, emotivism is not a theory that attempts to give an ethical basis for which to follow, it is a theory that attempts to describe ethical language and propositions. Emotivists think that their own morals are relative to their own emotions (which can differ to other emotivists).

>>4211

Sorry I have been away, you might be dead by now, so whatever. How do we unshame it? with honesty, passion, intelligence, and unabashedly so. Also we can not work outside the terms of moral ideology, it needs to be manipulated. You can not just give people new information and expect them to agree with it. You need to tell them they are Immoral, they are degenerate, they are wrong.

>>4231

No, only theories that claim to derive their notion of good from experience suffer the is light problem. Kant nowhere appeals to experience for his stance.

I don't disagree that dogmatism goes nowhere in the end, that's what Nietzsche is all about. Thing is that descriptive emotivism also goes nowhere in the end since it's own claim for relativity is arbitrary and hopelessly relative itself. Only Hegel can save you from these delusions.

>>4233

Is-ought applies to all of Hume's fork, that is, synthetic a posteriori AND analyic a priori. If the is-ought problem holds, then 'ought' statements do not seem to be known in either of these two ways, and it would seem that there can be no moral knowledge objectively.

He doesn't need to appeal to experience to fall into the problem.

Emotivism doesn't go anywhere when you are trying to find moral truth. But it is not trying to. Emotivism is trying to DESCRIBE ethical language. If you go by Ayer's emotivism, then yes it is arbitrary to itself according to the verification principle.

The only delusion here is that we are expecting an answer to what is right and wrong when there might not be one. I do not think there is an objective morality to adhere to, but that does not mean I can have my own subjective opinion on what is right and wrong. Kant can have his own opinion, I just dispute that it is anything more than an opinion.

>>4234

>"If you go by Ayer's emotivism, then yes it is arbitrary to itself according to the verification principle."

Which I should point out is why a lot of people think emotivism is bs and no one really follows it anymore.

>>4234

>The only delusion here is that we are expecting an answer to what is right and wrong when there might not be one.

And you know this, how? Through what absolute are you claiming ethics to be relative? How do you know your claim to the absolute is actually absolute itself, through intuitions? Through reasons? How can you justify anything?

>Is-ought applies to all of Hume's fork, that is, synthetic a posteriori AND analyic a priori.

I'll have to read up on this in greater detail than I have read it. I'll admit, I haven't cared in a long time about this question, but I'll respond to this later. Thanks for waking me from my ignorant slumber.

You people keep talking about morals relativity like it can be used in an argument against somebody who disagrees with you. They could just say the same thing to you about your position. The moral argument is there no matter what, so you have to argue your point from that place for them to care. Laws are made from opinion of what is right, and wrong, by people, so relativist position means nothing in this argument.

>>4248

>You people keep talking about morals relativity like it can be used in an argument against somebody who disagrees with you.

Uh, yeah? Because if morals are relative then there is no point in talking about them objectively.

>They could just say the same thing to you about your position.

That's the whole point of relativism.

>The moral argument is there no matter what, so you have to argue your point from that place for them to care.

No you don't. If morals are subjective then why should I try to disprove them as if they were objective? If I said seeing colour is a property of an object, and you said it is a property of perception, I cannot just say "UH NO YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTIES OF OBJECTS NOT PERCEPTION". That is completely ignoring the argument that you are putting forwards.

>Laws are made from opinion of what is right, and wrong, by people

Yes.

>so relativist position means nothing in this argument.

Non-sequitur. No...

>>4258

Morals are not relative to everybody, they may see them as truths. So you have argue against the point with a moral foundation, towards good that rejects their stance. We are not arguing truth because it is relative, arguing ethics is not philosophy, it is sophistry. So you should act accordingly, nobody cares about relativism when talking about this. When trying to get ahead in this issue, it is important to claim greater understanding objective morality that supports your position on the subject. This is how law works, also proofs add credibility.

It's immoral to have sex outside the sanctity of marriage or actual commitment.

The age is insignificant.

Further it is also primitive to lower yourself to being content with animal like instinctual pleasures like sex, rather than intellectual ones.

Man, imagine if I had a job...

>>4266

>Morals are not relative to everybody, they may see them as truths.

Even if you see them as truths, they are still relative to you. This is called opinion. You might BELIEVE it is objective knowledge you hold, that doesn't mean it is. What if I said that 'God exists' is an objective fact. That does not make it so, and does not mean that we suddenly have to talk about it as if this were objective. It is still my subjective belief. And whatever grounds I can try to use to try and make it an objective proof, it is still a subjective opinion.

>So you have argue against the point with a moral foundation, towards good that rejects their stance.

You cannot do this without relativism, however.

"Good is pleasure."

"But that is your opinion, you cannot ground that in truth."

"That does not argue against my moral foundation and so is not a criticism."

Even if it were the case, it still does not solve the problem that relativism puts to you.

>We are not arguing truth because it is relative, arguing ethics is not philosophy, it is sophistry.

Ignoring the implications of meta-ethics because it doesn't appeal to you the way you want it to, and justifying by saying that it needs to also assert an objective idea of morality is sophistry...

>"nobody cares about relativism when talking about this"

Because everyone likes their fancy retarded theories and don't want their bubble burst. It completely destroys their world-views that they have held their entire lives.

>"When trying to get ahead in this issue, it is important to claim greater understanding objective morality that supports your position on the subject."

So when you are trying to get ahead why are you claiming you have a greater understanding of objective morality than I do, let alone one that supports your position? And why are you assuming you can understand anything about the external world objectively?

>"This is how law works, also proofs add credibility."

Morality =/= law, if that is what you are getting at. Proofs do add credibility, I wish you would use some. You keep talking about your objective truth about morality and you have yet to even state it.

>>4267

Cool it, Mill...

Maybe the words were put in place to confuse you longer and ponder your existence, well.. "sad" existence ever longer into a metaphysical state in which you let put your anger unto the sacred heart of a son, he will not forget, and he will never forgive, god knows what we'd be created, such a complicated world for the first time in history in are views, but does it not show how far we have come to even define definition it self is to be lied to.

>>4272

Rhetoric is what matters,you can use the truth, but it doesn't matter unless you can grab the favor of people through other means. What part of this is not getting through to you? So yes the truth is a good foundation to place you argument on, but it will not sustain it. People do not care about the truth in this issue, so even more so, the truth takes a back seat to moral argument. It's anybodies guess why you can not understand this, but that is how it is. Arguing rationally with people exclusively does not change opinion unless you are arguing about science, and even then objective thought can be thrown away in heated debate.

Theres more to sex than just being ready to go

I'm pretty sure in my vulnerable adolescent state when I would jack off times a day I wouldn't want a 40 year old woman to use my as a sexual play thing. I would.be emotional ready or mature enough to deal with it (even that's probably just social conditioning and not something inherent in 12 year olds, although id then have to ask, so what?)

>>4371

But some kids like milfs, and in my "vulnerable adolescent" stage I might have liked to have used a girl as a sexual plaything. I popped my first a hardon in a shower from thinking about forcing a kiss on the school slut that I disliked, and would never go out with.

pedophilia is not morally wrong because it is merely an attitude, it does not necessarily lead to sex with minors or watching CP

watching or production of cp is not morally wrong as long as no one is coerced or tricked into having sex

lolicon is all the more not morally wrong

In old Russia you could fuck your daughter in law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snokhachestvo

4chan has a thread right now where a guy visits the Pirahã, the famous Amazonian tribe where it's acceptable for 17 year olds fuck 11 year olds and to switch partners at any time.

https://boards.4chan.org/his/thread/1787152

>>4640

>They'll begin having sex at around 10~11, and age differences doesn't seem to matter much (the guy I have most of my elicitation sessions with is 17 and his current partner is 11, they just had a baby).

guy replies

>I'm not a moralfag, but why doesn't the Brazilian government have a problem with loli fucking or try to enforce Brazilian law?

nowhere did he mention rape or non consensual relationship

just proves that people immediately jump to the one all be all conclusion

>>4640

>going to 4chan

eat a gun

>>4655

8chan is dead and we have killed it.

>>4658

8chan is a series of ones and zeros you sperg.

>>2139

all activities related to child porn, except for "performing" in it, or recording it, or anything else that actually requires you to either abuse a child or be an accomplice to the abuse, should be legal, as it does not contribute to the abuse of children.

if i watch a 6 year old girl get fucked, it does not cause her to experience the fucking all over again, nor does it cause another 6 year old girl to get fucked as well, if i post it up online, even if i charge for it, it will only have the same lack of effect.

in fact, it might actually decrease the amount of 6 year old girls getting fucked, by giving pedos a form of release that they would not get anywhere else, except by fucking a 6 year old girl.

the important part is that we maintain the illegality of fucking 6 year old girls, whether or not it is being recorded by a camera.

>>4870

>as it does not contribute to the abuse of children.

Does paying for it not contribute to it?

>>4872

then just illegalize paying for it.

>>4870

the main reason i personally support this, is it removes the one kind of contraband from the internet that everyone supports keeping illegal.

and because of this, the government can use it as cover for their attempts to censor the internet.

and you know, rape hysteria is how they do it offline, the only reasons they use adult women, is because little girls are untrustworthy puppets.

>>2144

>Right well I'm not a professional but it's certainly immoral to have sex with someone who can't really be aware of the consequences or emotionally mature enough

What is "all women", Alex.

As per Jim, the pedophilia hysteria is suppressed concern for who sexually mature and fertile women are sexing, which arose because openly expressing the latter concerns became low status, and then illegal.