Seperate Sex Partners

well... you might feel a little prick...

In terms of the Tahitians, I would find that custom troubling and repellent. And not because it's different than what I was raised to view as appropriate or right in any way, but because I know what children are and aren't ready for- emotionally and intellectually- and I know what they are giving up when they engage in something -or more commonly are forced to engage in something- they aren't emotionally or even physically ready for.
I'm sure those eleven and twelve year old girls were not asked their permission and did not give their consent-unless of course they'd been raised to believe they were fulfilling a woman's ultimate function in life-which very well may have been the case.

I find sex between adults and children just plain wrong on so many levels- and I've seen what it does to the girls mostly (but boys as well) who have been subjected to it.

And then there's the whole privacy and choice issue-for the child. I don't think it's right to steal that prerogative from anyone.

I'm glad I was a twelve year old girl when and where I was as opposed to in Tahiti during Captain Cooke's time. Of course you may view it differently as you're a man.
Those are just my thoughts on it.

You make a slew of unsubstantiated assumptions, thusly in order to support your claims you have to show that the Tahitians were "harmed", all you have done is apply your narrow-minded sexual mores and preconceptions to another culture.

You make a slew of unsubstantiated assumptions, thusly in order to support your claims you have to show that the Tahitians were "harmed", all you have done is apply your narrow-minded sexual mores and preconceptions to another culture.

joefromchicago wrote:

stuh505 wrote:

Emotions aren't instincts, but we have instincts to feel emotions under certain situations. I'm surprised that anyone would disagree with that...

I'm surprised anyone would say something so inane.

I'm not surprised you would be so inane.

In terms of the Tahitians, I would find that custom troubling and repellent. And not because it's different than what I was raised to view as appropriate or right in any way, but because I know what children are and aren't ready for- emotionally and intellectually- and I know what they are giving up when they engage in something -or more commonly are forced to engage in something- they aren't emotionally or even physically ready for.
I'm sure those eleven and twelve year old girls were not asked their permission and did not give their consent-unless of course they'd been raised to believe they were fulfilling a woman's ultimate function in life-which very well may have been the case.

I find sex between adults and children just plain wrong on so many levels- and I've seen what it does to the girls mostly (but boys as well) who have been subjected to it.

You make a slew of unsubstantiated assumptions, thusly in order to support your claims you have to show that the Tahitians were "harmed", all you have done is apply your narrow-minded sexual mores and preconceptions to another culture.

I don't think it can be said simply if an open relationship is strengthening or harmful. There is a preconceived notion in our modern Western society that it is morally wrong, but that belief in and of itself is meaningless. There have been other cultures which have had differing sexual mores inclusive of more open sexuality. Witness the pre-colonial Tahiti:

Quote:

When, after centuries of isolation, Christian explorers finally discovered such societies, they were amazed and incredulous. For example, when Captain Cook came to Tahiti he was greatly surprised to find that the Tahitians had sexual intercourse in public and "gratified every appetite and passion before witnesses". Thus, he reported in his Account of a Voyage Around the World (1769):

"A young man, nearly six feet high, performed the rites of Venus with a little girl about 11 or 12 years of age, before several of our people and a great number of natives, without the least sense of its being indecent or improper, but, as appeared, in perfect conformity to the custom of the place. Among the spectators were several women of superior rank who . . . gave instructions to the girl how to perform her part, which, young as she was, she did not seem much to stand in need of."

In spite of his consternation, however, Captain Cook apparently kept his composure and did not try to stop the performance. After all, he was not a moral crusader, but a practical Englishman, a seasoned world traveler, and a son of the Age of Enlightenment. It was left to the Christian missionaries of a later time to become outraged and to eradicate the traditional island customs. Indeed, one can easily imagine the effect the sexual spectacle would have had on Augustine, had he been able to witness it. One can also assume that it would not have changed his opinion. Instead of admitting that he had been proven wrong by the "shameless" islanders, he would probably have condemned them all as slaves of the devil.

At any rate, we know only too well what would happen to the Tahitian performers if they appeared in the United States today. Any man who performed in a "live sex show" with an eleven-year-old girl would be sent to prison as a statutory rapist. Even worse, as a "child molester" or "pedophile", he could be declared a "sexual psychopath". This means that, before, after, or instead of serving his prison term, he could be committed to a mental hospital for forced psychiatric treatment. If he should ever be released, he would be required to register with the police for the rest of his life. The girl, on the other hand, would be regarded as a juvenile delinquent and could be sent to "reform school". Finally, the entire audience might be arrested for having witnessed, and thereby encouraged, an act of public "lewdness and obscenity".

As this example illustrates, the moral values of modern America differ profoundly from those of pre-colonial Tahiti. There, people were applauded as valuable members of the community, who are here considered criminal or insane. What Americans now abhor as the moral "corruption of minors", the Tahitians encouraged as practical sex education. What appears sinful to us, often had a religious purpose for them. As a matter of fact, they supported a special order of celebrants (the Arioi society) who were trained to give public sexual performances. In short, the Tahitians subscribed to a sexual philosophy that is nearly the opposite of our own.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/sex_and_society.html

My point to comparing the pre-colonial Tahitian culture to our (presumably more advanced) Western culture was to demonstrate that there have been other cultures which have had differing sexual mores, not to argue the age of consent.

However, if you believe that pre-colonial Tahitian culture was more harmful "in toto" than our (presumably more advanced) Western culture then state your claims clearly and we'll see.

Keep in mind, I will assert that a number of our (presumably more advanced) Western culture's ills are in part a result of repressive sexual mores manifesting themselves in "harmful" ways.

The gauntlet is thrown, step up the sexual plate batter, the bases are loaded.......

gotta love silly mixed metaphors with some puns and innuendoes thrown in for good luck!

However, if you believe that pre-colonial Tahitian culture was more harmful "in toto" than our (presumably more advanced) Western culture then state your claims clearly and we'll see.