I'd not argue that mores means customs, i'd only respond that morality is another form of custom. My personal preference for the resolution of behavioral issues is that individuals have a personal ethos, and that the community maintain a social contract. The entire concept of morality is so polluted by religiously motivated absolutism, that i shun the idea.
Setanta - That was simply an exceptional post. Thank you for stating what I was thinking, but doing so far more eloquently and even-handedly than could I. I respect not only the position you've taken here, but the thoughtful way you've expressed it.
I tend to think morality is a codification of custom. Which has to mean that morality should be questioned on a regular basis! No more among us secular types than among the religious who say they get their morality from God, but many of us see them as looking for justification for their customs. (But this is off topic -- I was just musing on the relationship posed by your translation, Set.)
OFF TOPIC ? ! ? ! ?
Heaven forfend . . .
I think moral questions are the really tough ones, but quite unavoidable nevertheless - we engage them constantly.
There IS a rich philosophical tradition which addresses morals/ethics and which does so in a most careful manner, often quite cognizant of what Set calls the pollution arising from religious traditions (Set, I think you'd quite like JL Mackie
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/m-skepti.htm ) Bertrand Russel famously said that 'Ethics is the art of convincing others that they ought to do what you want them to do'.
But even if we hold that morals/ethics aren't objectively real things, we are still beset by the dilemma of moral choices. We can go with what authority pronounces, or we can trust tradition (though often, of course, previous authorities produced those traditions), or we can approach the dilemmas in a somewhat more philosophical or scientific posture - by questioning our own assumptions, for example. But that's often a very difficult social project, because it heads straight into taboos, and taboos tend to be the least inspected of our noggin contents.
Earlier, I said that I don't share the notion sitting in the NAMBLA quote - that age of consent laws/rules ought not to be in place. I think they ought to be, for the same reasons that Set and Scrat and Tartarin note. But that leaves open a lot of leeway as to all the fine points. And that's where we have to do the careful thinking. Dare I bring in the Woody Allen case? I'd simply make two quick points, merely to illuminate the complexities. First, do deny such a union through social constraint is not only to deny Woody's choices, but also to deny Soon Yi's. Secondly, their ages at the beginning of that relationship were almost identical to that of Charlie Chaplin and his wife, who went on to (she tells us) a rich livelong relationship for which she was most thankful.
Set - in your ideas about rites of passage and tribalism and their cultural consequences, you wade into an area which is extremely misty, in the same sense perhaps as Jungian archetypes are misty. You may be right, but it's hard to see how we could ever know.
I do consider (and Tartarin seems with me here, while yourself and Scrat in opposition) that rape is a clear and inarguable case of coercion, but that the other is not clear and is really quite compex.
Are we back to the love that dare not speak it's name? Some people are so positively Victorian they likely have lace for eyelashes.
I'm not going to argue the tribal origins of social custom in western civilization, and Herr Jung and i were never close. There is far better historical evidence, and far more, than i've provided here--but it would not have been germaine to have brought it in, and i did remark that i've commented at greater length on this topic elsewhere. I introduced the topic because i intended to argue that we need to have a very "high bar" when it comes to informed consent; i did not introduce it to provide an easy diversion from the heart of this particular discussion, which is coercion vs. consent in a comparison of "man-boy love" and rape. In fact, not wishing to again review everyone's comments, i'd be pleased to stipulate that i introduced a refinement in discussing informed consent. I consider informed consent to be a highly relevant consideration, in that many, if not most, rapes occur in a situation in which the victim knows the assailant--and i believe as much could be said of pederasty. I'm not going to submit to the vocabulary of NAMBLA any longer, what we are discussing here is pederasty, and, more specifically, whether or not pederasty is equivalent to rape.
To attempt to suggest that this is simply an argument about morality, and in what it consists, is to play loose with reality. I've already noted that i consider morality to have been made into a highly suspect shell game, and that i have two specific standards by which to judge the "value" of actions. Those are the ethos of the individual, and the social contract of the community of interest. Mr. Russell's witticisms have no bearing upon whether or not an individual is motivated to act by a set of considered standards of behavior, or simply motivated by appetite and a will to gratification. I specifically made the connection between the possibility of an individual acting solely from appetite and a will to gratification, and the social contract in application prohibiting certain behaviors as inimical to the interests of community. I therefore consider that i've provided sufficient commentary to obviate any contention that we are here splitting moralistic hairs.
Rape is an act of coercion--i believe that this statement does no violence to the understanding of those who have here been engaged in this specific debate. The question which arises from our disagreements is whether or not acts of pederasty involve coercion, and in sufficient degree, to qualify as correlative. The basis of my argument that this is the case is that a minor is considered by society to have insufficient knowledge, experience of the world and maturity of judgment to make a decision constituting informed consent. Society has made this principle obvious in a host of law and regulation which prohibits minors from engaging in specific social and economic behaviors, and prohibiting others from attempting to exploit minors in social and economic matters. The law always holds that if an individual is adjudged not to be competent to give informed consent, any action alleged to be to the detriment of that individual can be framed as an act of coercion. I certainly do not intend to entertain an abstruse discussion of the origin and propriety of law. The history of jurisprudence in matters law and equity in western culture over the last several centuries has been a consistent effort to abstract to the greatest possible extent matters of fact from matters of law, and the base law and its juridical interpretation upon demonstrable matters of fact. Say what one will about the origin of "customary" and "natural law," such concepts are fringe discussions, eddies in the great river of jurisprudence in western culture, which flows almost otherwise unimpeded toward a goal of objective foundations for law and its interpretation and application.
When the law, acting for and as a result of the eternal process of social contract, finds that minors are not competent to give informed consent, it is a statement about maturity of judgment, knowledge and experience, not an esoteric opinion. The pederast is exploiting various coercive techniques, such as the desire of the minor for security, as mentioned by LW, as well as the status of authority figure enjoyed by all adults in dealing with minors--and there are many other coercive advantages which adults enjoy in any dealings with minors which could be adduced. In an act of pederasty, it is not only specious, it is a either a case of willful blindness, or of argumentative "disingenuousness" to suggest that there is no coercion. Pederasty is equivalent to rape, in the eyes of the law, in any concept of equity which aspires to objectivity, and in the definition of the social contract.
Setanta -- As I see it, where you and I part company is in the disagreement over age of consent and the potential impact of the "consensual sensual" relationship with an older person. What I've been trying to get across is that our culture already permits a) rape of kids by their culture and economy -- not sexual rape precisely but rape as power/control and b) whereas sexual precocity is undoubtedly urged upon our kids, social and intellectual development is not -- in fact we have adolescents of thirty and forty around us everywhere who probably should be disallowed the sex act on the basis that children shouldn't have children.
To try to measure the impact of a sexual relationship with an older person in that context is almost impossible. From my point of view it's only as bad as offering a glass of good lager with dinner to a nine-year-old who's already drinking vodka for breakfast in full view of his parents.
I agree with you about the high bar for informed consent, but I don't think that bar should go away in one's lifetime. We're engaged in a war right now which was forced upon us without our informed consent. Monsanto and GM do it to us all the time in different ways. Disney and MTV and Coke do it to kids and in some cases they do it in our schools as a result of an adult(?) school board's decision. If you were in the posse out to catch those criminals who force themselves on on our children, I'd ride with you, no problem. But to single out the NAMBLA proposition, isolate it and demonize it, without taking into account the rest of what's happening -- well, that's where I ride off with a different posse!
I like Blatham's posts on this subject and would like to hear more even though it takes us even further into the realm of speculation...!
Set
Not bad at all. I must head out the door to work, but quickly...
You said, " Pederasty is equivalent to rape, in the eyes of the law, in any concept of equity which aspires to objectivity, and in the definition of the social contract." That sentence is true here and now. Had you been raised in Athens, Sparta, or other Greek cities, or other times and places, it would not be so legally nor in terms of your social contracts. So, law and social contract merely tell us what is, not what ought to be. But the central part of your sentence is the part I like..'in any concept of equity which aspires to objectivity'.
You aren't likely to find any instances where a person who has suffered rape years later says "It was fine. Fun, actually, I enjoyed it and it helped me develop as a sexual creature." But you will find such comments in the other case under discussion, and they aren't rare. If objectivity is our standard, then such a difference must be taken into account.
Of course we must protect children from the disparities of power and physical strength and experience, and of course we must acknowledge that some will prey on the weaker. And of course the realities of administering justice in a community necessitate that we have one speed limit on roads even where driving competence varies greatly, thus we must set some age of consent boundaries even though for some it should be much higher and others much lower. But rape (let's stipulate it as where the peretrator clearly knows the victim has said 'stop' and that he/she is now being coercive) is no different, in ALL instances, from assault ('yes, I realy enjoyed being beaten to a pulp...in retrospect, it was fun')
(Perhaps I ought to add here that I have no personal experience with either of the two acts under discussion, nor am I at all interested in them...my personal sexuality would perhaps be eligible for the Betty Crocker seal of approval given only that Betty is a saucy little devil).
Using one's status in a religious organization to garner victims is still has to be the most distasteful form of coercion. Having pity on the perpetrator, moving them to another location and perhaps giving them professional psychological help doesn't shake.
Back to the film, the Today show this morning had more clips from "The Passion" and some interviews with Gibson and representatives of the Jewish detractors of the film. I think the idea of the "interpretation" of the Gospel is paramount here and the Bible is not the most descriptively detailed text in the world leaving it open to interpretation. For me, it seems like it's like a classical conductor suddenly doubling the tempo of Beethoven's Ninth (which was done in Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" as satirical comedy). It's also dangerously close to turning the visual impact into a horror film of the basest nature. The blood smeared over Christ's body looks contrived and fake. I'd certainly like to read the script which is where the offending material seems to be a focal point right now of the schism between Christian and the Hebrew religions. Just what the world needs -- more animosity and unilateralism in the world's religions.
Finding some peace within one's own mind and getting along with other people (live and let live) doesn't seem to be a high priority in this example.
Nice and clear Blatham! And right. Coercion is the key.
I do have a friend, a healthy woman with a life-long terrific sex life, who had a relationship with her father for a time before she was even a teenager which she looks back on with pleasure. I've heard of other cases of this kind but they don't often get mentioned without someone saying, I'll bet I can find something wrong there!
All I know is that communities can have mind-sets for perfectly understandable reasons even as individual experiences frequently belie the accepted Truth. For that reason, unconventional experiences are too often not talked about, examined, or included in the human experience which we all draw on to form an idea of what's "right."
Communities simplify things sometimes from a kind of communal egotism -- "if we do it this way, it must be right and certainly it's right for our kids." But child labor arose from such a habit of mind, as did racial segregation and other mores we since rejected. It's as well to remember when one sets a bar, one necessarily does so from limited experience and that the wisest human will always look for ways of challenging his own accepted beliefs.
That's why oddities in our lives -- like NAMBLA -- should not be dismissed out of hand. One should be open to discussing the kinds of relationships NAMBLA proposes, not just "set the bar."
Well, BL, you refer to the ancient city states, to which i would reply that they are definitely not comparable to modern society, for a variety of reasons. Greece is touted as the cradle of democracy. In fact, the most of our traditions in western European culture which tend toward a democratic society arise in pre-christian, pre- or never-were-affected-by-Roman times. The Anglo-Saxon "thing," which still exists in the Isle of Man, was a "law-speaking," common among northern European Germanic societies, in which all adults of the ethnic group (i.e., not including battle slaves--a decided minority--nor adopted "foreigners") had an equal say in decisions.
The "democratic" tradition of the ancient Greeks is a sham. Reading Thudcydides is very enlightening with regard to the extent to which oligarchy, plutocracy, or mob-rule guided by self-interested demagogues was the norm in that troubled land. Athenian "democracy," for example, did not include the majority of the adult population--no women, no slaves (often a majority, or nearly a majority, of adults in the city), no commons in the Attic countryside surrounding the city. The laws of Athens were handed down to them by the dictator Draco, or by Solon--in both cases, these "law-givers" took or were given the right to legislate by fiat. It would be totally inappropriate to speak in terms of a social contract in the city-state which we continue to revere, wrongly, as the birthplace of democracy.
Sparta was an even worse case. Virtually all of Laconia, outside the city, and apart from the Spartan oligarchic class, were slaves. A good deal of my contempt for Plato arises from his praise of what was essentially a proto-facist state. Just as in the case of Athens, there was no social contract in operation, rather, there was the imposed rule of a privileged class. Athens was essentially a plutocratic, oligarchic proto-republic, and the same may be said of Thebes and Corinth. The principle difference between these cities and Sparta was that the Spartans were not materially acquisitive, and the alpha and omega of their aspirations was enforced dominance of all outside the privileged community of interest, which community within itself was severely strictured by the edicts of the Ephors.
Among the peoples of western and northern Europe, from which our democratic roots truly derive, an adolescent tribalism obtained, but slavery was uncommon, almost always involved military captives, and said captives had recognized rights, and a good possibility of manumission. Pederasty could well spark a blood feud, and such feuds could result in decisive social action, as the community of interest imposed its will by main force to ending destabilizing events. As late as 1199, Richard Coeur de Lion (Richard I of England) was killed in single combat by a chatelain in Normandy who accused him of the pederastic rape of his nephew.
Rome was ostensibly founded by a group who made of themselves the class of Patres, the "Fathers." Into their newly founded city-state they took Latin and Hernican tribal membes who sought their personal advantage in the city, or were simply engrossed as residents of the countryside to which the city laid claim. These latter constituted the class of Plebs, and any rights which they enjoyed were either handed to them for the manipulative advantage of the Patres, or were wrested from that Senatorial class by the concerted group action of the Plebs--such as the two notable occasions on which they removed themselves from the city over greivances with the Patres, as Livy describes in Ab Urbe Condite. The agrarian laws in various eras of the Republican Empire, most notably those promulgated by the Gracchi, were always obtained on the same bases--granted to obtain political advantage, or conceded to end or avoid civil strife--and were most notably evident in the breach, rather than the observance. It would not be appropriate to speak in terms of a social contract in the case of the Republican Empire, in that only the narrow community of interest of the Patres obtained unchallenged (usually): the Plebs had only those rights had been given them by the Patres, or wrested from the Patres; those rights were often, one might even say, usually, ignored or trampled upon by the ambitious, the greedy and the venal among the Patres; Latins and Hernicans had "Latin Status," which meant the rights of the Plebs, without the franchise (which meant few damned rights at all); prior to the establishment of the Principiate Empire, no one outside of Latinium had even Latin Status, with the notable exception of Narbonensis. After the brief period of the "Republic" under Iulius Caesar, the Principiate Empire was established and perfected by his adopted heir, Octavian, known most commonly to us as Caesar Augustus. From the time of the reign of the Dictator Sulla, at the end of the last Republican Civil War, and about at the time of the birth of Iulius Caesar, it is totally inappropriate to speak of any social contract. None obtained under Sulla, not even for the Patres, thousands of whom were judicially murdered under Sulla's iron fist. The brief return to consular rule after Sulla, totally sabotaged by the Civil War between Caesar and Pompey, hardly qualifies as a period in which a social contract could be said to have obtained. Of course, in the Principiate Empire, only the will of the ruler, or those who could manipulate him, obtained.
In the history of the West, only in tribal societies, and almost always in pre-christian tribal societies, does anything resembling a genuine social contract appear--before the establishment of the United States. Even then, the tendency of the state governments was toward a plutocratic, obligarchic form of republican government, with means tests for the franchise. The rebellion of Daniel Shays in western Massachusetts, and similar uprisings "died aborning" in the other states, lead the several assemblies to extend the franchise to universal manhood sufferage (which did not, of course include anyone but white men). The 1776 constitution of Pennsylvania was the first to offer a broadened franchise, and a unicameral assembly--but it was the exception which proved the rule. With the ratification of the Constitution, you have the first example in history of a social contract enshrined in writing as the supreme law.
The Reform of Parliament Acts of 1831 and 1832 in England ended a half-century of resentment, parliamentary wrangling and civil strife. Events like the "Peterloo" massacre in 1819 were not continuous--neither were they uncommon. Lord Grey was obliged to go to William IV to demand a creation of peers to push the Reform Act through the House of Lords, and William's initial reaction was to agree, then change his mind, allow the government to fall, and call in Wellington to form an "anti-reform" tory government, which the old Duke was unable to accomplish. William caved-in, Grey formed a new government, and after an initial, minatory creation of peers, the Lords gave up and allowed the passage of the Reform act. The result was that the franchise was extended to less than 15% of adult, white males. Two more significant reform acts were passed in 1867 (after Palmerston was safely in his grave--he literally meant it in his "over my dead body" stance against reform) and in 1882. As late as 1948, there were still means tests for the franchise in the assignment of rate payer funds in England.
I don't consider that there is any good example in recorded history of a self-consciously established social contract prior to the modern era in western societies. I cannot find any merit in the example of the ancient world, diseased and doomed by slavery, for the standards of behavior in a civilized society. I see no common examples of a broad community of interest living under the rule of a consented-to and written social contract before the 1776 constitution in Pennsylvania. I see this appeal to the customs of other times and other places as more or less an equivalent to the "well, everyone else is doing it" excuse so popular among children. If every other society went into a fad for thermonuclear suicide, would you have to have your own nukes? And if you don't lace up those shoes right now, young man, you could put your eye out.
I don't think Miss Crocker had much truck with sauces, apart form that fatty, ferinous white sauce which she recommends as the base for any creamed soup. How saucy her creators may have imagined her to be, when not in the kitchen, is a realm into which i hesitate to venture.
blatham wrote:Earlier, I said that I don't share the notion sitting in the NAMBLA quote - that age of consent laws/rules ought not to be in place. I think they ought to be, for the same reasons that Set and Scrat and Tartarin note. But that leaves open a lot of leeway as to all the fine points. And that's where we have to do the careful thinking.
On that point we can certainly agree. (And perhaps that was your point all along and I simply failed to see it. ???)
I fear, LW that Mel Gibson's film is playing second fiddle to the present discussion. I for one am tired of Mel Gibson and his adventures into religiosity. But to each his own. It's not my cup of tea.
I do want to add my two cents, even though I'm supposed to be doing some other very important thing. So this will be brief and not polished. I'm siding with those who point to the complexity in many of these situations. I believe I can say that violent/coercive rape is always wrong. And generally, sex with a child who is too young, sheltered or even abused to give consent should not be tolerated. I think it serves us well to have rules against such behavior. But setting the exact age is tricky, given individual circumstances, so it's a complex matter.
I too, Tartarin have talked to women who enjoyed sex with an uncle, brother in law or even father, although this is rare and this practice usually causes difficulties with psycho/sexual development. And I've also know women, Blatham, who have said they enjoyed the experience of sexual coercion. Indeed, it is the stuff of many women's fantasies. Sometimes these fantasies can be the result of a coercive sexual experience or series of experiences during a woman's developing years. While this may be a perversion, it is not always a symptom that is problematic in the life of a given woman (or man), although it often is.
I also distinguish between rape of a stranger or even someone known especially if it involves violence or the threat of violence and a situation often known as "date rape." I know this will not win me many friends, but I believe, in the case of a woman of consenting age, date rape is equally complex and full of potential, mitigating circumstances, and should be judged on a case by case basis. For instance, I am intolerant (while still sympathetic) of women who repeatedly and serially get involved with a man, only to deny him at a crucial moment and then cry rape to the roof tops. That's not to say that I think it ok for a man to force himself on a woman, however sometimes the woman shares a large measure of the responsibility. To deny this is, I believe is condescending to women and just plain prejudicial.
And, Set, I can't help but wonder if Blatham's apparent knowledge of Betty's saucy capacities may not be a matter of imagination or conjecture, but rather one of experience. He seems to speak with conviction. In that case, comment from you is likely unnecessary. So you're off the hook.
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Betty is kinda cute . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee
Yes, Lola. Here we are, both females, both presumably having had the experience of long talks with women friends, both aware of the complexities of women's relations with men seen from women's points of view. Date rape is decidedly a complex issue, simply a case in which there has been a shift in power rather than increased understanding.
One of my "issues" has been (since returning to the US) the extent to which American women are precisely NOT liberated: not liberated in the sense that their lives are still lived according to What Men Do To Them, be it a complex issue of date rape, or the glass ceiling, or just about anything else. The reference to man is always there. The pose is seductive but the fist is raised. Even my grandmother might have said, Make your own ceiling, sweetie, or go ahead and blow the roof off if you want.
As for Betty, I think it's disgusting. She's extremely old and, as with the very young, there's just no way of knowing whether consent is present. I hope very much that Blatham will come to his senses and leave that overly sweet, thick-crusted old pie alone.
Oh, and btw, I wonder at the train of associations that has taken us from the stated topic into a discussion about coercion and rape. Do you suppose some of us may be feeling Mel Gibson and his flavor of religion is invasive and well.............unethical? I wouldn't deny that interpretation for myself.
I just wish all of the ultramontane religionists would stay up on their mountains, and leave the rest of us alone.
