BaylorPRSer Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I listened to UPB, but it was at work, so my reading comprehension was not at its max. Could someone remind me how UPB couches statutory rape? I'm talking about consensual sex between a 30 year old and a 10 year old or something like that. Can you argue that it's the initiation of force because a 10-year-old isn't emotionally mature enough to actually give consent?
MysterionMuffles Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I think it would fall under in addition to fraud. The 30 year old would be using their knowledge and experience to exploit the naivity of a 10 year old. Most molestations aren't outright forced sex, rather an adult grooming the child for some time before making their move. Almost akin to a man picking up a woman...except you know...exploiting the child's need for approval, love, and attention, as well as expoiting the fact that they don't have a connection with their parents--against them. I want to know if there's any proof of this, but I do whole heartedly accept Stefan's argument that the children that get molested are ony able to be molested because their predators can sense that the child won't tell their parents, and if they did, they would not be believed. So perhaps it does go against UPB to rape a child even if they consent to it. It's using the principles of fraud to enact. I would go insofar as to say that it's UPB to not be exploited for your lack of knowledge or experience in and outside of sex.
shirgall Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 I think the UPB tactic would be to determine the universally-preferable maturity level (and independence level) of a conscious being to be capable of giving consent. From a law perspective "the age of consent" is the dividing line between people that cannot give consent under any circumstances, and those that can (barring other conditions, such as brain damage, temporary incapacitation, or being unconscious). Common law is actually good at ferreting out candidates for universality. It could be, as Rainbow Jamz pointed out, that an additional test concerning manipulation and control could be included... but one should attempt to keep it simple.
BaylorPRSer Posted February 22, 2015 Author Posted February 22, 2015 This came up for me because I was mentioning how the morality Christians attach to sex is troubling to me. I made the case that with rape, it's not the sex that's wrong, but the initiation of force that makes it wrong. Somebody then brought up statutory rape. You guys provided some good answers, but I didn't provide any frame of reference. Now that I have, I'm curious if you have anything else to add . . .
fractional slacker Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 As I understand it, UPB is applicable to beings that can comprehend and understand UPB. Exactly when and what age that happens is impossible to say. Since one cannot prove a fraudulent claim in regards to an older person having sex with a younger person, I don't think UPB would always condemn such a practice. There is not automatically a violation of UPB because of an age difference.Age disparity would fall under APB: aesthetically preferable behavior.
PatrickC Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 As I understand it, UPB is applicable to beings that can comprehend and understand UPB. Exactly when and what age that happens is impossible to say. Since one cannot prove a fraudulent claim in regards to an older person having sex with a younger person, I don't think UPB would always condemn such a practice. There is not automatically a violation of UPB because of an age difference. Age disparity would fall under APB: aesthetically preferable behavior. Yes, I agree with this, particularly in light of where there is consent, which statutory rape generally ignores. However, depending on the age difference and position of authority, it is still likely to accrue some serious negative consequencies for the older persons reputation. RJ does raise an interesting point about fraud, but I don't think it's enforceable by UPB standards, unless they were significantly younger (as in pre-pubecsent).
BaylorPRSer Posted February 25, 2015 Author Posted February 25, 2015 As I understand it, UPB is applicable to beings that can comprehend and understand UPB. Exactly when and what age that happens is impossible to say. Since one cannot prove a fraudulent claim in regards to an older person having sex with a younger person, I don't think UPB would always condemn such a practice. There is not automatically a violation of UPB because of an age difference. Age disparity would fall under APB: aesthetically preferable behavior. Basically, a 30 year old having sex with a consenting 9 year old isn't wrong it's just gross. You may be right, but all I can say is that my gut tells me there's some sort of philosophically rigorous way to argue that it's immoral. I'm not coming up with anything concrete though, so I may very well need to accept that it's APB.
PatrickC Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Basically, a 30 year old having sex with a consenting 9 year old isn't wrong it's just gross. You may be right, but all I can say is that my gut tells me there's some sort of philosophically rigorous way to argue that it's immoral. I'm not coming up with anything concrete though, so I may very well need to accept that it's APB. In regards to a 9 year old, I think we can say that UPB has been violated. A child of that age (pre-pubecsense) is easily physically verifiable and therefore unable to make a decision of rational self interest, as they don't possess sexual desire in quite the same way (if at all) as a post pubescent person does. It only gets complicated when it's between adults and post pubescent children (teenagers) that APA would apply. All said and done APA doesn't mean it gets the older person off the hook. They can still face significant sanctions from the broader community for their actions. It's just from a philosophical (enforceable) position that UPB does not apply.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I listened to UPB, but it was at work, so my reading comprehension was not at its max. Could someone remind me how UPB couches statutory rape? I'm talking about consensual sex between a 30 year old and a 10 year old or something like that. Can you argue that it's the initiation of force because a 10-year-old isn't emotionally mature enough to actually give consent? Can sex between a competent adult and an incompetent child be UPB? No, because one is competent and the other is not. That breaks with universality right away. A big fat UPB fail. 1
aliasneo Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Can sex between a competent adult and an incompetent child be UPB? No, because one is competent and the other is not. That breaks with universality right away. A big fat UPB fail. Why is a 10 year old automatically incompetent and an adult competent? I think it's wrong, but that falls under personal opinion. There is no definitive 'competency test' that I know of, but "statutory rape" is a law and laws are hypocritical because they're not UPB-compliant. In my head, sex between two consenting people is fine as long as both people think about it for a long time (semantics), weigh the pros and cons, etc. There are just too many variables in this hypothetical. What if the old person is retarded and the 10 year old is a genius. What if the 10 year old is an undercover cop? What if, what if...? No offense by any of this. I love this post and all the replies. Stay curious, my friends. 1
DaviesMa Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 The child is owed protection under the standards of UPB as they will have the potential to exercise UPB in the future, as opposed to animals or objects, which will never have that ability. There is definitely and element of fraud as Rainbow Jamz mentioned, as presumably, the 10 year old would not know what they were consenting to and the full consequences of their consent. If a child doesn't have the brain maturity and life experience to understand what they are doing then they cannot give informed consent, the same way that selling something to a brain damaged adult could not be deemed as consent. In evolution if an adult had told a child not to eat a particular kind of berry or not to wander off into the bush, those who disobeyed would have been poisoned or attacked by predators so it was advantageous for children to take at face value what adults say. This is how we are able to convince children of the tooth fairy or Santa, despite the notions being logically absurd. I would be very surprised if this wasn't an inate feature of a developing brain, which would further erode a childs capacity to consent. I am also toying with the idea that children are a coercive relationship with all adults, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated, but I am not sure if this can be proven or is correct. 1
Pepin Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 It is a similar situation to making a contract with someone with is extremely intoxicated. They do not at that moment have the reasoning ability to understand the contract or the terms, so they aren't really able to consent. Someone who makes a contract with someone who is intoxicated is exploiting this. For instance, tricking a mentally handicapped person into giving you $100 through misleading math is theft. A child's rational faculties are not at the point where they can understand sex and they aren't really able to give consent. To put it this way, it is the equivalent to drugging someone and having sex with them. While their rational faculties are diminished, they may "agree" to have sex, but in reality they are in a state where they have little to no control of their body and have no real capability to agree or disagree. In the case of a child, they are always under the influence of childhood. For an interaction to be UPB compliant, both parties need to have an understanding of the interaction and the theory behind it.
BaylorPRSer Posted April 21, 2015 Author Posted April 21, 2015 It is a similar situation to making a contract with someone with is extremely intoxicated. They do not at that moment have the reasoning ability to understand the contract or the terms, so they aren't really able to consent. Someone who makes a contract with someone who is intoxicated is exploiting this. For instance, tricking a mentally handicapped person into giving you $100 through misleading math is theft. A child's rational faculties are not at the point where they can understand sex and they aren't really able to give consent. To put it this way, it is the equivalent to drugging someone and having sex with them. While their rational faculties are diminished, they may "agree" to have sex, but in reality they are in a state where they have little to no control of their body and have no real capability to agree or disagree. In the case of a child, they are always under the influence of childhood. For an interaction to be UPB compliant, both parties need to have an understanding of the interaction and the theory behind it. Do you think a sober person having sex with a drunk person is not UPB compliant?
neeeel Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I A child's rational faculties are not at the point where they can understand sex and they aren't really able to give consent. This seems strange to me. First, what does it mean to understand sex? What is there to understand? Second, research shows that they understand sex well enough to experiment amongst themselves. Third, depending on what you mean by "understand", children probably dont understand just about anything they do, and yet they are still allowed to do it, or made to do it in some cases. So I dont really understand what angle your argument is coming from. 1
Alan C. Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 The reason why children cannot give consent to sex (or to contracts) is because they don't posses a sufficiently developed mental faculty to evaluate and appreciate consequences. This would apply also to a grown adult whose mental faculty is impaired in some way (eg. retardation, injury, birth defect) precluding them from exercising sound judgment.
Better Future Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 By my standards I would say that most adults are not mature enough to consent. So many people getting pregnant and raising children when they really shouldn't.
J. D. Stembal Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Mental faculty and competency is not the point. Children can comprehend sexual reproduction from a very young age if you take the time to explain it to them. Look at these baby chicks. They will grow into hens, and start to lay eggs. This is just one half of sexual reproduction... The reason why it is preferable for ten-year-old children to abstain from having sexual intercourse - no matter the age of the other participants - is because they are as yet too young to start a family. If children were actually taught about sex before the age of puberty, they would understand this and likely reserve the privilege to experience sex until later in life. In theory, I could have functionally impregnated a thirty-year-old woman at age ten since I was recently pubescent, but imagine living a family life where your father is only eleven years older than you, and your mother is thirty-one years older than you. How would that work out? In hunter-gather tribes, puberty comes far later (sixteen and older) than it does in the modern civilized world. I believe that little tidbit comes out of Sex at Dawn, but I could be mistaken. There are some very interesting theories as to why we, in the West, start puberty 6-8 years sooner than usual.
Pepin Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Do you think a sober person having sex with a drunk person is not UPB compliant? Context would be needed to determine that. For instance, someone having sex with their drunken spouse is acceptable in general because of the nature of the relationship. The spouse would have sex with their partner regardless of being drunk, and their marriage is proof of that. On the other hand, someone who goes to a bar and takes advantage of drunken people are not acting ethically because the relationship is different. It is unlikely that the sex would occur if both parties were sober. It is akin to getting a drunken person to handle over all their money to you, though they might have said yes, you really don't have permission. The issue gets more complex than that since many people intend to get drunk and have sex when they go out to bars. I think there is a clear moral line in the extreme, but it also gets hazy It is kind of like abortion in that aborting very close to birth is pretty messed up, while aborting when it is just a couple cells is not an issue. I'd suggest that where it is hazy ought to be considered aesthetic ethics and that the behavior ought to be discouraged. In the case of abortion, discourage any grey behavior. In the case of sex with intoxicated people while sober, it is more messed up to do it the less you know them and the more intoxicated they are. Someone who has a little buzz can likely reason enough to give consent, but it gets more confusing when you get past that. A general rule might be "would you let them drive you around in this state?". I'm honestly a little unsure how I would phrase this argument in UPB type language. It isn't really a clear cut case, but I'd argue that the extremes are black and white.
neeeel Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 The reason why it is preferable for ten-year-old children to abstain from having sexual intercourse - no matter the age of the other participants - is because they are as yet too young to start a family. So sex is purely and simply about making a family? Also, if the 2 participants are young, then theres no chance of making a family. So I dont understand how your reasoning applies in that case? Your reasoning also doesnt apply to sexual activities other than intercourse.
Pepin Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 This seems strange to me. First, what does it mean to understand sex? What is there to understand? Second, research shows that they understand sex well enough to experiment amongst themselves. Third, depending on what you mean by "understand", children probably dont understand just about anything they do, and yet they are still allowed to do it, or made to do it in some cases. So I dont really understand what angle your argument is coming from. A child may know what buying a house means and what getting a mortgage entails, but they don't really understand it. Signing a contract with a five year to lock them into buying a house 15 years from now would be silly because even if the child can correctly interpret all of the terms and conditions, the child doesn't at all understand what they are getting into. The components of neurological development are very complex, which is why I use the high order concept "understand". A lot of it has to do with the perception of time. Eh, I am not really willing to make take this argument any further. If you're interested, look into child development.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Why is a 10 year old automatically incompetent and an adult competent? I think it's wrong, but that falls under personal opinion. There is no definitive 'competency test' that I know of, but "statutory rape" is a law and laws are hypocritical because they're not UPB-compliant. In my head, sex between two consenting people is fine as long as both people think about it for a long time (semantics), weigh the pros and cons, etc. There are just too many variables in this hypothetical. What if the old person is retarded and the 10 year old is a genius. What if the 10 year old is an undercover cop? What if, what if...? No offense by any of this. I love this post and all the replies. Stay curious, my friends. The pedophile has to have a reasonable certainty of competence in order for the sex to be UPB. If, as you say, there's no definitive competency test then they can't say the kid is competent. So it can't be UPB.
Recommended Posts